427 upvotes, 16 direct replies (showing 16)
View submission: The Ethics of Defense Lawyers
This article is trash. "Dr. Cole" is absurd. An American defense attorney is there to uphold the Constitution. To ensure every citizen is guaranteed their rights, because if you think it is ok to ignore the rights of the guilty, then it is ok to ignore the rights of everyone.
The sentiment of the defense attorney in the article that he trusts in the system and everyone deserves a zealous defenses IS the majority not the minority belief of defense attorneys.
Attorneys are not psychopaths if they defend the guilty.
Comment by SayNoToStim at 13/01/2020 at 22:43 UTC
127 upvotes, 4 direct replies
To add on to your point, the defense generally doesn't even present an argument of "my client didn't do it," but rather "You don't have enough evidence to prove he did it." The first one can be morally grey depending on what you, the attorney know, but the second is absolutely a morally ethically sound defense regardless of what you know or believe.
Comment by DrHalibutMD at 13/01/2020 at 21:56 UTC
63 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Agreed. You have to defend those you feel are probably guilty just as strongly as those you feel are innocent just in case you are wrong. You are not the judge or jury.
Comment by cli_jockey at 14/01/2020 at 00:08 UTC
14 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I'd argue a defense attorney almost needs to have a bigger heart to a degree to defend the accused. They need to work with people who have been charged with sometimes atrocious crimes and I'm sure that is incredibly draining on your mental health.
Sure there are bad ones out there who are only in it for the money. But there are only so much room for those types. Most people cannot afford those types.
I really feel for public defenders. They barely make any money and don't have much of a choice in client if I understand how that works. Yet they go in day after day, work their asses off, just to make sure you get the best legal representation you can get guilty or not. They are the defense against putting innocent people in jail. While it's not ideal, I'd rather some criminals get away with their crime than one innocent person stuffer in jail or prison.
Comment by patriclus47 at 13/01/2020 at 22:17 UTC
19 upvotes, 2 direct replies
NC Defense Attorney here and I absolutely agree with your comment. Thank you.
Comment by SonicStun at 14/01/2020 at 00:23 UTC
10 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Indeed. I'd actually argue that we want defense attorneys to be the *most* capable attorneys. If you're going to punish someone, you want to have proved the case against the strongest possible defense.
Comment by www_isnt_a_dick at 14/01/2020 at 00:34 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I understand this so much better now that I learned you can get a retrial if your defense lawyer doesn't do all he can to defend you. It's about upholding the Constitution not about getting evil people off for profit.
Comment by jacgusto at 14/01/2020 at 03:56 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I just took the LSAT today in hopes of becoming a defense attorney and reading this article was so jarring. I do not consider myself nor my colleagues psychopaths or narcissists. The overwhelming consensus by those in defense work is to uphold citizens (and often non-citizens) right to a fair trial, regardless of actual innocence. This article is BS.
Comment by PaxNova at 14/01/2020 at 01:25 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The best way I've heard it phrased is: a defense attorney isn't defending a guilty client; they're prosecuting the government for overreach and violation of rights.
Comment by TemerityUnmitigated at 14/01/2020 at 02:22 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I would say that most defense lawyers *don't* trust the system. Otherwise, I couldn't agree more with your take.
Comment by dennymattsons at 14/01/2020 at 02:40 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
If this is a defense attorney and upon that basis alone is it not the presumption of innocence the main objective and upon saying defense of the guilty actually make it nullified to defend?
Comment by Mr2-1782Man at 14/01/2020 at 04:48 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Interestingly enough I could find no professional references for Dr Cole. No papers published under that name, nor any references to a psychologist with that name. Her website seems to indicate that the only professional training is "over a decade of experience". There's also a Quora profile under that name with a similar title that claims they work in California. Searching for a California Psychology license pulls up zip. That likely means that this individual either isn't a practicing psychologist, or they're practicing without a license. Either one makes me question anything they say.
Comment by jiggly_bitz at 14/01/2020 at 05:03 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Well that is the difficult part of meshing the philosophies of morality and legality. See a situation where an individual actually guilty and has infringed on the rights of another, what is to be done. This is where right and wrong meet, eye for an eye or forgiveness.
I would find it personally difficult to be a defense lawyer as (by and large) the individual indited is guilty of breaking the law to some extent, and if I am aware of that I would find it difficult for me to defend that, especially knowing that individual wronged another.
I believe the US justice system is as fair and relatively consistent as it can exist in a modern society. Some people benefit more than others for a variety of other reasons but it is most definitely a best fit situation without it being completely forgiving/unforgiving and fair.
Comment by sortasapien at 14/01/2020 at 16:35 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Precisely. The real issue is the collusive nature of the relationships between prosecutors, district attorneys and the police.
Comment by content_magician at 20/01/2020 at 15:40 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Always remember that a criminal is a bizzare baby of the society. Everyone in that stupid high class who ironically fancies joker and has hysterical opinions on justice ,should not forget that justice is not something that feels right.It is what is right. Ideal justice system can only be available in heaven. Can you count the no if times you have not been nice to a parcticular person for instance in school. All pushes matter at last.You being mean to someone is a pardonable is sh*t . No sin is . Some of the convicts are wrongly held some have committed it by corcumstances some are mentally disturbed all have their stories. Also it helps the police to be more effective.They would actually work for their salary.
Comment by wobblydan at 13/01/2020 at 23:59 UTC
-6 upvotes, 3 direct replies
The idea that in order to be ethical, we must equip each side of a conflict with a professional whose sole purpose is to bring that side *victory*, at the expense of the truth, by any legal means necessary, including any loopholes they can find, is a notion that's certainly up for debate. I think it's pretty gross, if the evidence clearly points to a guilty party, why should someone be fighting to exonerate that person?
You're right, based on the logic of the constitution, defense lawyers are engaging in, at the very least, a job consistent with the law of the land. That doesn't make it right that such a position exists.
(I read the article now)
Comment by [deleted] at 13/01/2020 at 23:19 UTC
-2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[removed]