Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By lying to his attorney the defendant has a greater chance of being found guilty - which is what should happen to someone who commits murder.
Not everything is simply black and/or white - some things certainly are - other times there are extenuating circumstances - thus, it is the defense attorney's job to make sure those circumstances are presented and thoroughly. That presentation and representation can make all the difference to that defendant and that trial outcome.
I think i would have a VERY HARD TIME defending someone if they admitted to me they killed someone! (I dont care if I were getting paid)
I'm certain John Grisham has covered all of this.
There is a scene in 'The Firm'---Tom Cruise has the documentation that will connect the entire Firm to illegal activities including murder related to the client's legal interests. He tells the client that if he is 'Its' attorney he can never reveal what he knows. It was quite a scene.
I think i would have a VERY HARD TIME defending someone if they admitted to me they killed someone! (I dont care if I were getting paid)
No doubt [smile] you would therefore need to be a prosecutor instead. However, in order for the system to work, we need both - defense and prosecution.
If the person I killed was attacking me and I was protecting myself, it would be argued as self-defense - which we, I believe, are permitted to do - yet it would still be considered a killing. Or protecting my child from harm....not so sure it would be considered self-defense however, certainly extreme emotional distress and/or mitigating circumstances. And, should I have to go to prison for 15-life for that, I don't think so and I think my defense attorney would argue that well, especially by knowing all of 'my' facts.
Again, not everything is simply black or white - sometimes yes, not always.
The deck isn't changing in favor of the prosecution at all in any case that the defendant committed no crime.
Come on. Doing away with the right to avoid self-incrimination is an open invitation to fishing expeditions. On the flimsiest of evidence, the prosecution's logical approach will be to level the most serious accusation they can think of, then wait for the forced confessions to pop up.
I'm sure you feel it'll only apply to other people. You know, bad people.
But do you really want the IRS to be able to lean on your tax attorney to disclose every conversation if you're audited? Because that's the way this will be used. ("No", you say, "only those conversations where I confess to wrongdoing." Which is naive, because the prosecution will of course insist that your attorney is illegally withholding information, and subpoena every note. His only defense is to record every conversation. Are you beginning to see the problem?)
Attorney-client privilege goes back to the era of Elizabeth I. Back then, of course, it was simply a question of the now sadly outdated concept of honor - a gentleman obviously couldn't take money to represent someone and spill his secrets at the same time. (Honor really needs to make a comeback.)
Quote:
No facts can condemn a man who has committed no crime.
"If you're clean, why should you care?" is the worst excuse there is for removing people's rights.
I think i would have a VERY HARD TIME defending someone if they admitted to me they killed someone! (I dont care if I were getting paid)
Public defenders are paid pittances, yet are often tasked with defending people accused of very serious crimes. There's not a lot of money to be made in criminal law, except for the few superstars, of course.
But to practice law, you have to be committed to the system, clanky and inefficient as it is, and keep a professional distance to the individual cases. There is a responsibility on police and prosecution, as well. If the case is open-and-shut, they should be able to provide convincing evidence.
I don't see the connection of how attorney client privilege plays into this.
I may have worded that clumsily, but can we assume for the sake of discussion that dopery is the lesser offense and that time of day is a critical factor in deciding whether you're committing mopery or dopery.
Assume further that the client doesn't know of the mopery/dopery distinction and doesn't know that the timeframe may make a difference. A defense may be mounted on those grounds. ("Your honor, who calibrates the arresting officers' timepieces?") That is the defense lawyers damn job.
But if the client knows for sure that speaking to his attorney is an immediate confession, he will clam up and run every risk of being convicted of an offense he didn't factually commit. Bad idea.
My ex started as a criminal defense attorney right after law school. He would complain that he wasn't getting paid by his clients. And I would say (to this extremely altruistic man), "that's because they're CRIMINALS." Some lie, some don't. There is no cookie cutter defendant. BTW, he tried getting higher retainers, then switched to a different law specialty.
If I recall correctly, all defendants are entitled to the best defense possible under the law. That doesn't mean "getting them off"; it means that based on the circumstances, apply the law to ensure they are effectively defended based on the laws (and against mis-prosecution).
But the reality is that lawyers like to win their cases.
And to the person who said OJ told Cochran he did it, I don't buy that for a second! OJ will never ever ever, even on his death bed, admit that he did it. Neither will Casey, IMO.
I doubt it-there is a study out...please don't make me find the source that says 90% of all people that see psychologists/psychiatrists lie to them...so what makes Lawyers different? Most criminals will never admit to their crime-he/she will say "it got out of hand" or "I never meant for that to happen" it's very rare for people to admit they are monsters...
And to the person who said OJ told Cochran he did it, I don't buy that for a second! OJ will never ever ever, even on his death bed, admit that he did it. Neither will Casey, IMO.
Why wouldn't he have admitted it to Johnny? Unless you think he has an irrational or psychological problem.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
