March 11th, 2008, 07:24 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
| nuisance since 1968
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: ɐqɟs
Posts: 10,457
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Theophylact  Their job, distasteful as it may have been, was to defend the client they had been assigned, even though they knew he was guilty. Failing to do that would have been a grave breach of professional conduct. | Let's see... I'm sitting in jail, 100% innocent, do I really give a fuck about someone's "professional conduct"? WTF!!!!!? This is one area of our legal system that is FUBAR. Needs to be done away with. The fact an innocent person is jailed and an attorney in the case with knowledge of this innocence is required to keep silent is just so very wrong. Wrong on every possible level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theophylact This is not an easy call, and I don't see how you could pass a law that wouldn't create more problems than it would solve. Would you trust a lawyer who could rat you out without consequences to himself? |
If "ratting you out" means exposing the truth, then he should be encouraged to rat away. Isn't the truth what we are supposed to be shooting for? As it is now, the system is not designed to uncover the truth, it is setup as a competition to see "who is the better lawyer". And that my friend is a messed up way to deal with our court cases. You can show me any trial in any court case in America and I, as an American citizen, can safely say I don't give a crap who the better lawyer is in those cases, nor do I care if the "better lawyer" wins or loses the case. What I do care about is getting the truth uncovered.
The truth should be the end all be all. Not some lawyer's "profession conduct". The system is so screwed up from square one it's hard to imagine it ever being fixed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theophylact Do you think the guilty aren't entitled to competent legal defense? |
Well, the way you ask that question, NO, the guilty are not entitled to crap. Because they are guilty. But we don't know that until after the trial. The question really is "are the accused entitled to competent legal defense?" And the answer is, of course, yes. But competent legal defense does not mean you have to let an innocent man go to jail. |
|  |