How do lawyers cope with defending rapists and murders?

[DetteAmelie]

Every news show I've seen this. Ik there's a lot of criminal cases dealt with per year, but it's an insult to society to defend someone from a serious crime that they committed, like the one someone mentioned above.

It’s an even bigger insult to legal system. If an individual’s right to be represented in court is neglected, this automatically contaminates their right to a fair hearing  -- diminishing the INTEGRITY of our justice system. Regardless of the crime that has been committed, each person deserves the chance to be adequately represented in criminal proceedings. Why? So it doesn’t excuse the conduct of trial judges; so that the prosecution isn't pardoned from abusing the use of peremptory challenges; and so it doesn’t excuse those who testify inaccurately.

Think about it. If murderers were denied this right to be represented, do you really think that they’d be given to chance to have a fair trial? If an individual is indeed guilty of crime, this doesn’t acquit the judiciary from its responsibility to prosecute cases honourably.
And that's why the opportunity and incentive to be represented in court should never be denied, even if it's for a "serious case."

Edit: If it's known that a person is guilty, then I'm pretty sure that the lawyer defending them won't go as far a prove their innocence, they'd simply be there to ensure that the courts are living up to their constitutional obligations.

when they go in there and blab out shit like "he has mental problems", "he was suffering -----" it's just wrong.

What do you mean it’s wrong? There are people who genuinely suffer from mental impairments.

[thushan]

Every person is entitled to have fair and equal access to the justice system, and that includes competent legal representation. This is why I volunteer to give legal seminars to inmates at one of Melbourne's maximum security prisons, because even "scumbags" (as they call themselves) deserve a fair shot at justice.

I don't know how I would react until I am actually presented with this dilemma in reality, but I'd like to think that I would act for them, because someone has to and it is my job.

Here's another perspective. What ethical dilemma exists for a lawyer who represents a criminal? Little, if any, actually.
In Australia, one is innocent until proven guilty. Despite what the media say, despite any preliminary evidence, a person cannot be said to have committed a crime until a court rules that said person is guilty.

For example, a lawyer who represents a person who has been charged with rape (say Adrian Bayley) is representing a person who ALLEGEDLY raped. At that stage, we cannot say whether the person has raped or not, because it has not been proven in court (under the assumption that courts are correct in their ruling). Hence, we cannot say that the lawyer has represented a rapist, because at that stage we do not know whether the person he/she is representing has actually committed the crime.

Now, if the client had plead guilty, and a sentence were to be handed down, from my understanding the handing down of a sentence is not black and white in that there would be some degree of subjectivity. One person may decide that a full life sentence is necessary, another may decide that say a 10 year sentence is necessary for reasons X, Y and Z. Either suggestion may be reasonable, hence we need a lawyer who needs to argue that case if we were to have another (the prosecutor) who argues for a life sentence. Without the lawyer representing the client, the sentence handed down would be more likely to be too harsh.

[ninwa]

Yup, everyone deserves a trial. I don't think you rightly interpreted what I had said though.. by law, everyone is allowed to argue their case aren't they? Although I think it's absurd that someone would defend a criminal from a serious crime. Obviously.. they must go to court and plead their case, but, who would actually do the deed for the criminal? Wouldn't they feel extremely guilty themselves?.. after all, they would be committing what I would see as a moral crime.

Innocent until proven guilty. The person is not a criminal until a competent judge and jury finds them to be so. No, I would not feel guilty for playing a role in maintaining the original purposes of our legal system.

No I'm not a qualified health professional, but it doesn't take a genius to know that lawyers are going to make up bullshit to lessen the criminal's sentence. Do you actually believe what lawyers say?

A genius would provide citations to support this (frankly disgustingly ignorant) argument.

[Professor Polonsky]

No, but really, by just watching the news there's so many famous people walking out of a courtroom guarded by their scumbag looking lawyer. Every news show I've seen this.

"Scumbag looking lawyers" is stupid rhetoric and I suggest you refrain from it.

Ik there's a lot of criminal cases dealt with per year, but it's an insult to society to defend someone from a serious crime that they committed, like the one someone mentioned above. It actually amazes me.

That's the whole point of the system - you have to prove that someone did it (beyond reasonable doubt). And as I said above, without a proper legal defence the whole justice system is useless. How can there be any justice carried out if you can have false charges brought up against you, and then apparently you "don't deserve" being defended?

What you said is right though, everyone deserves a fair serve of justice, but when they go in there and blab out shit like "he has mental problems", "he was suffering -----" it's just wrong.

That's got to do with punishment and the objectives behind it. I assure you that all criminal sentences are well grounded factually - I linked to them before, go have a read. And punishing someone needs to serve an actual purpose.

​The only purposes for which sentences may be imposed are—

• (a) ​​to punish the offender to an extent and in a manner which is just in all of the circumstances; or
• (b) ​to deter the offender or other persons from committing offences of the same or a similar character; or
• (c) ​to establish conditions within which it is considered by the court that the rehabilitation of the offender may be facilitated; or
• ​(d)​ to manifest the denunciation by the court of the type of conduct in which the offender engaged; or
• (e) ​to protect the community from the offender; or
• ​(f) ​a combination of two or more of those purposes.

I'm not a qualified health professional either, and this is going to be politically incorrect, but I'm inclined to agree with the above too.

Judges can see through crap if it is crap.

[Russ]

Enjoying replying to this, because I'm just going to ignore this thread now.

How brilliantly mature.


e, all you people talking about how lawyers just make up bullshit...you do realise there are requirements for giving testimony about mental health, etc. It's not just something lawyers decide to throw in at the last minute.

[pi]

I'm not a qualified health professional either, and this is going to be politically incorrect, but I'm inclined to agree with the above too.

Hmm having just read http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/08/faking_insanity_forensic_psychologists_detect_signs_of_malingering_.html, I am reversing my stance. I didn't realise the process for determining mental illness in court (albeit not an Australian article) was so stringent.

Apologies.

[ninwa]

Thanks for that post it was very informative. As for them saying "just doing their job", it must be somewhat difficult. What if the murderer is declared not guilty? I know that everybody has a right to fair and equal access to the justice system, but I would find it immoral to let a murderer or rapist free.

Good question. And I'll do my best to explain.

Firstly, if a client tells you they are guilty and wants you to plead not guilty, you are not allowed to do that. Your principal obligation is to the court because you are first and foremost an officer of the court. You must transfer them to another lawyer. You cannot lie to the court.

I'm assuming you mean in the case where the criminal was guilty and got off on a technicality?

The "technicalities" in the law exist for a reason. For example, evidence law prohibits the tendering of evidence for the sole purpose of diminishing the credibility of the accused, or for the purpose of showing that the accused has a tendency to do certain things (or something like that, I can't remember exactly but if you're interested I'll dig out my evidence notes). This may seem extremely unfair, because it can lead to situations where you may be prohibited from leading evidence of an accused rapist having been convicted of rape of 5 previous occasions.

But these rules exist for a reason. Imagine you were in court accused of bashing someone up. Imagine that two moths ago you were in a bad mood because some drunk idiot leered at your girlfriend, and you had sent a text to your mate saying "mannnn these fuckers at the pub are idiots I want to beat them into a bloody pulp". If it weren't for these rules of evidence, the prosecution might be able to bring out these text messages and say to the jury "see, this person is clearly the kind who tends towards violence".

Do you see how these rules serve a purpose now? Of course, sometimes they can go too far. But I would rather they erred on the side of caution. I would rather 10 guilty people walked away than 1 innocent person go to jail.

[clıppy]

Just going to leave this here

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1i4jyb/lawyers_of_reddit_what_cases_are_you_sorry_you_won/

[spectroscopy]

How can there be any justice carried out if you can have false charges brought up against you, and then apparently you "don't deserve" being defended?

+1 million to that
people say that if you are under a trial you dont deserve being defended, but what if youre innocent ! its better to have a guilty person go free, and then eventually get caught later, than have an innocent person having his life thrown away + the accuser or whoever framed the innocent party is free to do it again because they know they'll get away with it

[JellyDonut]

As a fan of Phoenix wright: ace attorney I think I'm more than qualified to answer your question

[meganrobyn]

Just a quick note to chip in that most cases aren't about whether the defendant "did" it: they focus on whether the prosecution's evidence can *prove* it, and/or whether there was a "reason" for it being done or an interpretation of the law that would negate or diminish its illegality. It is therefore the lawyer's job a lot of the time to poke little holes in the prosecution's evidence, or to find "legitimate" reasons to excuse or mitigate or condone the behaviour - not to prove your client didn't "do" it (you don't ask your client if they're guilty, it's just silly practice). And most of the time the motivation for this isn't justice. It's to get the best possible outcome for your client. Not, and this is the bit I always had a problem with, to get the outcome your client *deserves* (morally, ethically, etc). I always want to cast judgment.

Of course I'm speaking in broad generalisations, and only from what I personally have observed.

Also, most clients aren't millionaires, but lawyers still charge what they charge. When I was working for Legal Aid we had barristers giving us deals for clients where they would do a 30min Mag's hearing for $500-1000. Rather than looking at how many big names are on trial, it might be more accurate in terms of the current debate to look at what barristers and solicitors charge - because, except for pro bono, the cost is the cost and people will just (have to) find the money somewhere.