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.
If the client is known (with absolute certainty) to be guilty of the crime, then justice is not served by errors in the legal system (failure of the state to prove thier case).
If there is a shadow of a doubt regarding guilt, then of course a client should be defended with all vigor. However, when guilt is 100% certain, perhaps a less vigorous "defense" should be made to protect a criminal.
Then you get dragged through endless appeals because the defense wasn't adequate -- which is also the way the system is supposed to work.
Otherwise, you've got the lawyers making the determination on guilt/innocence before we ever get to trial. Secret justice was one of the things our Constitution was written to circumvent.
IMHO, there is a big difference between representing a defense client, and pulling out all the stops to get them off with the least possible punishment. Doing the later is really in the lawyers interest, to up their reputation, than it is for the good of society. Hillary is really all about Hillary. She's a classic sociopath, I think. Everything in her life is about getting to the top. I'm sure she stayed married to Bill, only because she thought it would be better for her career.
Sorry.
Lawyers cannot ethically half-ass their work bc of their feelings.
Yeah, I'm sure that 12 year old agreed. Not a big deal, right?
If "everybody knew he was guilty", the fault lies with the DA and the police for not doing their job.
I realize you hate her, but if a DA botches an open-and-shut case, the defense lawyer is 100% obligated to use that on behalf of his/her client. That's how adversarial systems work.
Think, people. Do you really want a justice system without guaranteed access to competent counsel?
IMHO, there is a big difference between representing a defense client, and pulling out all the stops to get them off with the least possible punishment. Doing the later is really in the lawyers interest, to up their reputation, than it is for the good of society.
No. Failing to do the latter is malpractice. It is very, very good for society that prosecutors and DAs and police forces have to do everything by the book.
Her job or not, she did not have to take this case. If she felt he was guilty, to go ahead with getting a child rapist off with a slap on the wrist, that is appalling. I dont care if that is her job, she chose to do it.
But augie is right. Hillary has always been about Hillary.
If you listen to the interview it seems between the laughter that she took great pleasure in helping someone she BELIEVED to be a pedophile rapist escape justice.
Definitely NOT the moral decent person the media portrays.
Her job as a lawyer or not, she had a choice to take this case or not it seems. She took it, knew he was guilty, yet worked to get him off with a slap on the wrist. I dont care if it was her job, you cant have morals or good character to knowingly free a child rapist.
Good read on this at the link above.
You dont change DC for the better by electing people like this. You Hillary supporters must be so proud. Along with her not having accomplishments worthy of being President, why on earth would you want someone like this in DC, let alone as our, as your President?
so let me get this straight, you are trying to beat down hillary clinton for actually doing the job that a defense attorney is supposed to do? sorry, even i dont buy that crap. i dont want hillary anywhere near the white house ever again, but i wont hammer her for doing the job she was being paid to do, and that was represent her client to the best of her ability, and get the best possible outcome for her client. anything less would have resulted in her censure by the bar, and possible disbarment.
So, if you think a patient may be guilty of a crime, your medical care is less vigorous and less than stellar?
If the answer is yes, you should be stripped of your licence.
Agreed.
It is not your job to pass judgment. It is to do your job.
And watch the low IQ low-information voters blame it on the legal system.
She had the choice to defend or not defend the rapist. She chose to defend him, knowing he was guilty.
About 90% of court cases end in a guilty verdict. Using your logic 9 of 10 accused aren't entitled to a trial where the government must prove it's case before incarcerating or killing you. A defense attorney knows that most of his clients are guilty.
That isn't how our legal system works, one has to first be proven guilty before they can be called guilty. The prosecution didn't prove without a doubt that he was guilty. That isn't Hillary's fault being the court appointed lawyer. It is also unethical for a lawyer to throw a case just because they think their client might be guilty.
Again- that is why it is a LEGAL SYSTEM, not a JUSTICE SYSTEM. Ideally, a legal system and a justice system should be one in the same. When we have a legal system releasing known criminals, it is far from a justice system.
When there is deviation from what is legal and what is just, it sets the stage for alternative, or vigalante forms of justice.
Let's say I had a close relative who was a victim of a violent crime. The assailant, due to the legal system, was released as "the state could not prove the case". What would I do? I would hunt them down and kill them. Of course, in our "legal system", I would certainly be convicted, despite having achieved justice.
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.