Poll: Would you ever be a defense lawyer?

[Tomo Stryker]

Which is a good thing for him, because a defense attorney that judge someone guilty from a mere sight without bothering to find what happened, aka on circumstancial evidences, is a bad attorney.
Ever seen "The Green Mile"?

No I actually haven't yet. Although you are right, I was using an exaggerated example. What I meant was that if the evidence was obviously stacked against him and there was camera footage of him/her committing said crime, I would turn down this case.

Although someone else would take that case, I would not. But some lawyers simply don't take cases for far smaller reasons than circumstancial evidence.

Note: Weird, that "Circumstancial" shows up as spelled incorrectly

 

[JediMB]

No. I doubt I'd be able to defend someone whom I was convinced was guilty.

However, defense attorneys are needed. Innocent people are put on trial too, after all, and everyone deserves to have someone on their side who makes sure that the trial is fair. As long as there isn't any foul play involved, I would never pass judgment on a defense attorney for defending someone I see as "obviously" guilty.

That said, I'm against juries being used in a court of law. Sentence needs to be decided by someone rational and knowledgeable, and not some random people falling for a sob story.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Sure, the right for the accused to defend himself in a court of criminal law is one of the basic pillars of any justice system, and I'd have nothing against filling such position.

If you can't separate your feelings from your work, then very few parts within subject of law are suitable for you anyway, since pretty much all of it revolve around conflict and thus usually someone's misery.

It would take better skills as an orator than I possess though, so it's probably not something I'd pursue even if criminal law was my main field of interest.

This. And I'm a lousy orator as well. (I have a slight stutter, but nowhere near as bad as George VI in The King's Speech).

 

[Something Amyss]

I think it'd kill me by degrees. Losing cases where I actually believed the defendant innocent or winning those where I believed the defendant guilty.

I understand everyone should have a right to a defense, I'm just not the person to do it.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Does being a defence attorney work the same way as it does in Ace Attorney: Phoenix Wright? If so count me in, I can't wait to scream "Objection!" in court all day and then bluff my way to success. If not then nah, that's not fun.

 

[The Apothecarry]

In a criminal case, no. If my client was guilty, I would hand him in unless there was enough reasonable doubt for me to convince myself that he may be innocent.

 

[Gurk]

These are all very interesting points.

I wanted to thank you all for your two cents worth.

I dislike said defense lawyers a little less now. The only person I should really be hating is the murderer himself.

 

[Amberella]

Does being a defence attorney work the same way as it does in Ace Attorney: Phoenix Wright? If so count me in, I can't wait to scream "Objection!" in court all day and then bluff my way to success. If not then nah, that's not fun.

Haha. I figured you'd say something of the sort. And I happen to think you'd be great at that job, dear. xD I could be your personal assistant. ;D

Me...nope. haha.

 

[lambsheep]

I just saw Lincon Lawyer, so fuck yeah.

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

I'm sure I could learn to keep the business side of things from affecting other aspects of my life. You forget that, in some cases, there's very little the defence can do against overwhelming evidence.

I hope they get an appropriate sentence. I can't imagine how infuriating something lesser would be.

Thats cause overwhelming evidence usually means they are guilty, just saying.

Defense lawyers have to represent their clients rights no matter what, I could never do that if all the signs say he is guilty.

Which is why it'd be so hard. You still have to argue against the facts.

 

[Sir-jackington]

It wouldn't be easy but i would. wether you win or not would depend on how good a lawyer you are not on your personal views. You could sit down and say to the guy "you're complete and utter scum....but i'm your lawyer so i'll do my best"

 

[Indecipherable]

I am sorry for the tragic loss but your anger is misplaced when you insinuate what you have.

 

[shadowmagus]

Couldn't be me. I mean sure, defending people who are unjustly accused is one thing, but I could not be party to trying to get someone off who is clearly guilty.

 

[Gardenia]

Sure, the right for the accused to defend himself in a court of criminal law is one of the basic pillars of any justice system, and I'd have nothing against filling such position.

Basically this. As a defence attorney (the way I understand it, please correct me if wrong), your job is basically to defend your client in the best way possible, just as your job as a prosecutor is to have the defendant pay/suffer as much as you can. This is a fundamental function in the legal system, and stops us from descending to lynch mobs and injustice.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Probably yes. While in your case the guy should be guilty but how about those who are genunie innocent? Or how about a simple accidently end up being a law suit?

 

[ACLinn]

Regrettably I can't remember where I saw the news item, however, as it appears that an instrument - which can tune-in and "read" a person's (mind and) thoughts - has recently been invented. If it is used to ascertain whether a person is guilty or not guilty of any charge brought against him (or her). Would that not mean there would no longer be any need for (court-cases or) defense or prosecuting attorneys? Just a thought.

Although I have no training in law - I recently completed a teleplay (published in the form of an eBook), i.e., fiction based on fact, which concerns two individuals being accused of a 'crime' they did not commit, and subsequent attack on the 'moral character' of their offspring. A hypothetical court case (revolving around the Law of Tort) in which the prosecuting attorney is permitted (by the Judge) to call a witness in the defense of the couple. And, yes, in this instance* (*knowing that the couple are innocent) I could, most certainly, be an attorney for the defense. However, if I personally did not believe that an accused person was innocent of a crime, although possibly called upon to act in his (or her) defense on a pro bono basis, I could only hope that the prosecuting attorney would succeed in providing irrefutable proof of the accused's guilt.


I am very, very sorry to hear of your loss, and trust that justice will be done.

 

[MonocleClaire]

If Phoenix Wright has taught me anything, it's that I should never be a defence attorney.

 

[A Free Man]

Of course I could, has it even occured to you that in many cases (not specifically yours as I don't know anything about it) the person being prosecuted may in fact be innocent. I'm not 100% on this but I even believe it is illegal for a lawyer to plead not guilty on his defendents behalf if the defendent has admited in any way to him even privately the truth. As for the whole sympathy vs fact scenario, wouldn't it be more likely than not that it is the prosecuter playing the sympathy card considering they are representing the victim... Keep in mind I am speeking generally not about your case specifically and it is hard not to sound like a personal response considering your question is so vastly biased.

 

[Gurk]

Of course I could, has it even occured to you that in many cases (not specifically yours as I don't know anything about it) the person being prosecuted may in fact be innocent. I'm not 100% on this but I even believe it is illegal for a lawyer to plead not guilty on his defendents behalf if the defendent has admited in any way to him even privately the truth. As for the whole sympathy vs fact scenario, wouldn't it be more likely than not that it is the prosecuter playing the sympathy card considering they are representing the victim... Keep in mind I am speeking generally not about your case specifically and it is hard not to sound like a personal response considering your question is so vastly biased.

No, I absolutely understand.

I suppose when I originally asked this question I was still so furious about the results of today.
Now that I have calmed down though, I understand that being a defense lawyer is simply another way to pay the bills. Why I could never do it myself, I understand why there is a need for them and I should not think any less of those that represent defendants.