Do you think attorneys should be brought before the attorney board
February 7, 2009 10:47am CST
for accepting some criminal cases that anyone with normal intelligence and moral decency would know that there is absolutely no defence for? If you were an attorney for instance, would you defend the likes of a Madoff or a Blago? I wouldn't. Judging from the many people they've hurt--and judging from the fact that these people are so obviously guilty that I would be blind--or willfully blind--not to see it, the answer is NO. I would not take cases defending anyone who diddled with a kid. How despicable. That is why it's careful to ask the right questions, and to explore all the evidence. For me, I don't believe in taking cases just for the money. That is why I am not a lawyer. Having to lie--knowing you are guilty. Attorneys--how far would you go? I know we are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but I don't feel a lawyer should feel obligated to take any case he or she feels uncomfortable with. That's what public defendors are for.
1 person likes this
• United States
8 Feb 09
The law requires an attorney to give each client the best possible defense. There is nothing in it about innocent or guilty, and especially those who are appointed by judges have to ignore anything regarding innocence or guilt. Unless the judge releases them from the case, they have to defend these clients, no matter what, or go to jail themselves.
• United States
7 Feb 09
No matter what, the attorney should defend his or her client the best s/he can. If there is no defense, then it's a guilty plea. If there is a defense, like reasonable doubt, then its pursued. I don't think there's anything morally wrong with it (some lawyers are morally despicable as people, but I don't think it's because of who they defend). This is just the way the legal system is, if it's not one person defending the despicable, it's another... everyone's entitled to a defense.