Moral repugnancy and defense attorneys.

What happens?

Well, we just wait until their next crime, and hope justice is done then.

Things like that happen all the time. And not just to "lower class" criminals.

I don't hear too much complaining when a powerful "upper class" individual gets off, mainly due to a good defense.

And in most cases, they are able to do more damage to society than the common street criminal.

Latre!

 

I agree with that statement. Too many celebs get off the hook because they can afford high priced BS'ers.

 

You can let an innocent man out of jail.


I'm glad you can take so much liberty with the freedoms of other individuals.

I highly doubt you would feel the same way if you were thrown in jail if you knew you were innocent.

Latre!

 

"Well, we just wait until their next crime, and hope justice is done then."

Let me ask: Is it better that Jeffrey Dahmer be let off 99 times than one innocent man be convicted?

The day murder victims get appeals is the day that whole line of thought might begin to hold some ring of truth.

"I don't hear too much complaining when a powerful "upper class" individual gets off, mainly due to a good defense."

Hey, I was as pissed as anyone when O.J. bought his trial. Johnnie Cochran is the epitome of what I'm talking about here; a guy who'll get any criminal off for money.

 

Is it better that Jeffrey Dahmer be let off 99 times than one innocent man be convicted?


Yes.

In the end, he did get his, and justice was done. Both in the eyes of the courts, and in the eyes of individuals who were glad he was killed by another inmate.

Many criminals are repeat offenders. Usually sooner or later, the legal system will get a conviction.

What I find sad though, is that they let out alot of these individuals that are known to be career criminals.

But that's for another thread.

Latre!

 

Here's a case for you:

Two years ago, in my town, there was a guy people knew as "Crazy Dave." Everyone around him knew he was a lunatic; his hobbies included impromptu public strip shows, challenging girls to fistfights, and screaming matches with God.

One day, Crazy Dave decided to go for a drive. His route took him along a densely populated street, into the broadsides of several other cars, and ultimately into four pedestrians, killing them all. Having done this, he leaped out of his car announcing, and I quote, "I am the Angel of Death!" before being subdued by a crowd and subsequently arrested.

At the trial, his defense attorney argued that, rather than the life in prison sentence the prosecutors sought, Crazy Dave should spend his life in a mental institution. The defense won, and to this day Crazy Dave spends his days in a quiet padded room.

Are you arguing that the attorney should have tried to put him back on the street?

 

How does a society go about repaying an innocent person for being thrown in jail? Should this person suffer for the good of the legal system? For the safety of masses?

Like I've said before, the legal system tries to protect the innocent not the guilty. If a person like Jeffrey Dahmer is acquitted 99 times, then we can surmise that there was not enough evidence against them. Plain and simple, thats whats required.

Depriving somebody of their liberty can never be compensated.

 

If he was found to be legally incompetent, then he should go to the mental institution.

If he wasn't, and he plead innocent, then yes, I think that his lawyer should have tried to get him off.

As it is from your story, it appears that he only had the option of going to jail or the mental institution.

Either way, I'm glad he is off the street and getting help.

It's sad it took this incident to get him the help he needed.

As for the "Angel of Death", perhaps you should share this story in the "End times" thread.

Latre!

 

Are you arguing that the attorney should have tried to put him back on the street?

The difference here is that the prosecution had more than enough evidence to convict him. It was not a case of the client confessing to the lawyer when there was not enough evidence for the prosecution.

A lawyer's job is to provide the best defense for his client that he can. In the bast case, that would involve getting him off completely. However, where the other side has overwhelming evidence (such as the plethora of witnesses in your example), you try to get the best sentence for your client that you can.

However, you cannot just try to get him convicted if he has only confessed to you. That is a breach of attourney-client confidences.

Kimball Kinnison

 

"Depriving somebody of their liberty can never be compensated."

Someone wrongfully convicted can be released. Someone wrongfully killed? That's a little trickier.

That's why I don't agree with this hundred-guilty-men-go-free business. Those hundred can do a hell of a lot more damage than one innocent man can do from a cell he doesn't belong in--and as undesirable as it is for that man to be convicted, the total amount of suffering a hundred free criminals can inflict amounts to much more than any one man can feel.

For that reason, I think that attorneys assigned to defend confessed criminals need to do what's best for everyone.

 

But what if the innocent man is sentenced to death, and then executed?

He can't be set free then.

Latre!

 

That's a different story, but it's thankfully rare.

 

Thank goodness it is. Mainly due to our justice system being the way it is.

Latre!

 

But what if the innocent man is sentenced to death, and then executed?

The point is that if you let those 99 criminals go, then the net effect of that is going to result in much more than just one innocent person being killed.

 

That's why I don't agree with this hundred-guilty-men-go-free business. Those hundred can do a hell of a lot more damage than one innocent man can do from a cell he doesn't belong in--and as undesirable as it is for that man to be convicted, the total amount of suffering a hundred free criminals can inflict amounts to much more than any one man can feel.

For that reason, I think that attorneys assigned to defend confessed criminals need to do what's best for everyone.


What if the guy confessed to some crimes because he was coerced? Is that what's 'best' for everyone? It has happened, and it has happened around my area too. Some guy was convicted in the 80's for killing a girl in the woods, right near where I live, and he was coerced into a false confession. I think. And found guilty because of your logic. Then in the 90's he was set free because of DNA evidence. By your way of thinking he should have died, he was on death-row by the way.

 

The point is that if you let those 99 criminals go, then the net effect of that is going to result in much more than just one innocent person being killed.

So, by that way of thinking, one man's innocence is worth sacrificing for the good of society?

Maybe in a society where it values the masses over the individual, but here in America, we each have individual rights, and I think that is what everyone here should try to remember.

Whether the person is guilty as all heck or innocent, they each have the same right to a fair trial.

Latre!

 

You're right. It doesn't matter that criminals who go free continue to be criminals, and routinely kill again. It doesn't matter, because those people they kill, rob, rape, whatever--they're just "the masses." Who cares about them?

It's the criminal that's important. He's the one on trial, and it's his right to walk free if he finds the right lawyer, no matter what the consequences to anyone else. If he kills again--hey, we'll catch him sooner or later, and who cares what he does in the meantime? As long as he gets the help he needs, nothing else matters.

Right?

EDIT: I'm angry about this. People who sympathize with criminals over their victims tend to rile me.

 

I'm not sympathizing with criminals over victims. I'm defending the logic of the law. And the law says a person is innocent until proven guilty. Even if he's cofessed as such.

 

Hey! Why so angry?

We're just having a discussion/debate here.

For the record, I'm a big believer in that criminals should pay for their crimes.

I have studied criminal behavior, and know all about the many terrible things that they do. And believe me, I hate all of it.

But, since we are confessing our anger here, what makes me angry are people who don't understand that other individuals, no matter how pathetic and revolting they are, have the same rights and freedoms as themselves.

It doesn't make what the person did right, and I hate it when someone gets away with a crime, but if we were to change the system, your rights and freedoms would be changed as well.

Latre!

 

//shakes it off
//takes a drink

 

I could sure use one of those drinks as well!

Latre!

 

But what if the innocent man is sentenced to death, and then executed?

Well, for the record, I could find myself supporting a death penalty law that required DNA evidence to give the death penalty - other cases that would have gotten the death penalty would get life in prison instead.

 

Everyone in America (unless you are a "terrorist") is given the right to a fair trial.

Why should "terrorists" be exempted? Everyone in America should be tried fairly.

But, if they don't try to get their client off, are they really doing their job? Is the defendant really getting a fair trial?

Absolutely. The lawyer's job is to represent the law. If the client is guilty, then they need to defend the client, and try to get that person the best sentence that the law will permit. The lawyer's job is *not* to lie or to manipulate the law so that someone who has *broken* the law can then bypass the consequences. That is not fair trial. That is cheating the system.

What if the defendant represented themselves, as is their right to do so. Would it be right if they lied and got off? Any difference there?

THere's a reason lawyers are there -- they're trained. They theoretically know the law better than most people. A person is perfectly within his rights to defend himself, but if he doesn't know all the ins and outs of the law, how is he to use it to his best advantage? If they lied and got off, it would be bad, but at least they wouldn't have a representative of the law breaking it for them.

[/i]It just seems to me that if they are going to try and argue for a fair sentence, even if the defendant has pleaded not guilty, the defendant has not received a fair trial. [/i]

Okay, so someone, say, commits murder and pleads not guilty. His lawyer knows, however, that he is guilty. In what way is it not a "fair trial" for the lawyer to work toward the law? The law is not there for those with the money to afford a good lawyer to get out of trouble, it's there to provide justice for all. Is it "not fair" to be punished lawfully for comitting an illegal act?

No matter how awful the crime is, we are all entitled to the same rights.

Yes. We're entitled to defense. We're entitled to a lawyer who can do his best to turn what could be capital punishment into a lesser punishment. We're not entitled to walk free after comitting a crime.

I'll read and comment on the rest of the thread later.

 

I will wait to respond once you have read the whole thread.

Latre!

 

We're not entitled to walk free after comitting a crime.

I couldn't agree more.

Well said.