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.
He will be found guilty in these cases if the lawyer retires from the case.
The lawyer retires from the case because the defendant admitted his crime.
The defendant admitted his crime because he committed the crime.
Therefore, if he committed the crime it is in society's best interest that he is found guilty.
You have missed the central point of what criminal defense attorneys do. They hold the "state's feet to the fire" so to speak.
We follow a simple maxim in this country which is that "a person is innocent until proven guilty". Its not the job of people to go around admitting to crimes. Its the job of the state to prove with some form of evidence that they actually committed a crime.
If you'll stop and think about it, if our sole goal was simply to prevent crime there are all kinds of things we could conceivably do. We could have a rule that every citizen has to submit to a polygraph test every six months. During this polygraph exam they would be asked if they have stolen anything, killed anyone, or ever engaged in unlawful sexual relations. There is scientific evidence now which shows that 98% of the time, a polygraph test can correctly identify a liar. Based on these polygraph results we could than charge all people who either admit to wrongdoing or fail the test with a crime. We could put the burden of proof on them to show that they aren't guilty after these results come in. Also, why not *require* everyone to give a DNA sample? It would assist the police immeasurably in solving unsolved murder and sexual assault cases?
Here are the facts:
1. Crime prevention and crime solution is only one public policy we have in this country.
2. Other equally important public policies are preserving the freedom of the individual and preventing the state from becoming too powerful and too intrusive in the lives of ordinary people.
3. The role of criminal defense lawyer is much maligned by many. However, he/she plays a key role in preserving individual freedom and liberties.
I can take this even further. I would say the amount of crime we are willing to tolerate in America--without taking steps to curtail liberties--represents something. It represents what I will call the "price of freedom". Freedom isn't free. Although, some seem oblivious to freedom's real price or cost. That cost is represented by higher rates of violent crime and property crime than are seen in Totalitarian systems like Nazi Germany or the former Soviet Union.
That's the Faustian "bargain" we've made in this country. I am in favor of it. I'm not oblivious though to price we pay for it. Some don't seem to understand this at all.
Sometimes the defendant doesn't tell his lawyer he's guilty because he's actually innocent. I know it's really popular to shake fists at defense lawyers, but that attitude changes once somene needs a lawyer. Attacking the evidence doesn't imply that the defendant is guilty. Even if the defendant is innocent, the prosecution can put up some evidence that might look compelling, but can't stand up to attack. It should also be noted that prosecutors also will attack evidence that the defense produces. Does doing that imply that the defendant is innocent? "The innocent have nothing to fear" is one of the greatest lies ever told.
Actually, I think sociopaths do know they are guilty; however, I also believe they feel they are justified, or yes, it is someone else's fault AND most certainly, have an amazing rationale for whatever their behavior is/was -- crime committed -- and the only time they are the least bit sorry is when they are caught - not for what they have done but being caught.
They do believe, and I do believe it as well, that they are above the law because they are sooooo gooood at their crimes and have the most amazing stories and cons that they can and do convince everyone, from their attorneys to even the prosecutors [okay, maybe one or two prosecutors are smarter than the sociopathic criminal] that they are innocent and/or justified.
1. It's oversimplifying the question to get it down to whether the person "did it" or not. In many cases, the question is not just whether the defendant performed a certain act, but whether the defendant had the requisite mental state at the time, whether there were any facts in existence that would constitute a defense even given the prohibited act, whether the charge is correct or overstated, what the right sentence will be, and undoubtedly many others.
2. The power to prosecute someone, use all the resources available to the state, including the ability to enter into and search homes, to subpoena financial and other records, to compel others to give evidence, and to imprison that person, is an awesome power. For centuries we have determined that this power of the state must not be unchecked, but must only be exercised for the most compelling reasons. The only way to ensure that the power won't be abused, and that only the guilty will be convicted and punished, is to make sure that all criminal defendants are afforded an adequate defense.
3. Just wait until you're charged with a crime. Guilty or not, you'll be looking for the best lawyer you can find and afford.
I recognize that hypocrisy is a moral failing, not a logical one, but it illustrates that a principle that may be appealing in the abstract can be shown to be less so in its concrete application.
Most do not but many times the lawyer knows as he sees the evidence. But a defense is his job.But often they have to make accusation they know are not true whcih I would think should be a problem for any decent person.But its really no surprise that alot of lawyers could careless except for the fame and money really.
The laws/rules of evidence, put certain conversations as "sacred." Conversations between you, your wife/husband, pastor, or attorney. What you tell these persons and/or what you say to someone you ASSUME is a privileged person, is not admissable in court (yes, there are exceptions).
Is it in society's best interests for OJ to be able to admit his crime to his attorney? Shouldn't the law force the attorney to bring this up to the court and therefore put truly guilty defendants in a situation that they would have to lie to their attorneys?
Are you kidding? Sociopaths convince themselves that they are completely innocent, and stay to that story, because they truly believe it is not their fault that they are in trouble. Take OJ for example, "it was all HER fault, cheating, lying no good ho". He repeats that mantra to himself so much he believes his own innocence!
I would think this is the exception; the overwhelming majority of criminals know exactly what they've done.
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.
