Intellectual Property Law

lawyers...?

lets just say the person they are defending has admited they are guilty of a mass murder why would a lawyer still back them and try and get them a lower sentence? seems wrong to me, even though i guess its all about money like what if the person got out early because of the lawyer and killed the lawyers family, would they deserve it?

Public Comments

1. It is not our place to judge our clients, we just represent them to the best of our ability and act only in their best interests, as the state acts in the public's best interest. If someone is a mass murderer, as per your example, you have to think: there has to be a reason why these murders occur ed as these are not the actions of a normal thinking person. We, as defence lawyers, would try to discover what had happened and what went wrong, and we would present that to the court for the court to decide on sentence. Whether someone is released early or not has nothing to do with us. That is what the law is according to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and has nothing to do with anything said in court. Yes, it comes down to money, but only because this is the job that we have studied for and been trained to do for years, and so we have mortgages as well, and we also need to eat. As for whether my parents deserve to die because I did my job correctly, well I will not justify that with a reaction. I hope that you are never accused of a crime you did not commit or, if you are, I hope your solicitor is as conscientious and diligent as the vast majority of my colleagues. EDIT: I love getting the thumbs down when I have given the correct answer. It just goes to show that this website should be renamed Yahoo Opinions and not Answers.
2. It is the lawyer's JOB to do all he/she can to represent the client's interests, which means creating the best outcome despite any obvious liability or guilt. Otherwise, a lawyer can be found liable for malpractice. Two points: 1) It's not what the state of _______ vs the person believes, it's what the state can prove. 2) Believe it or not, there are always circumstances by which somebody can get off for murder charges. Insanity is one of them, but there are others. Hope this clears things up a bit.
3. It's not about the money. It's about the need for a barrier between the government saying "put that tool in jail forever" and the law saying that there needs to be a good reason. Thomas More's son-in-law yelled at him one day saying, "You would give the devil himself due process of law!" Saint Thomas's reply: "I would indeed, for my own safety's sake. Take away due process and who among us could stand against the storm that would follow." The hypothetical you pose is of course ludicrous. Consider, however, that karmically speaking, you deserve to be dropped into Gitmo or Abu Ghraib, and stay there, because, of course, the government "knows" you did soomething. Consider, too all the fabricated evidence coming out of crime labs. Houston is just the tip of the iceberg. I'll tell you what, though: next time you're charged, don't hire an attorney. Trust the government. They'll give you a right finie trial, and a right fine hanging, too.
4. Just to calify what Shell said, in the situation you describe, the attorney is bound by attorney / client priviledge not to reveal the substance of the conversation. HOWEVER, if the client had told the attorney that upon release he/she was going to commit another murder and the attorney has sufficient grounds to believe the client capable of such, then the attorney has a duty to inform the police of the conversation.
5. Our justice system is constructed in such a way that the defence lawyers HAVE TO defent the accused to there best ability. The defence cannot think about the fact that the accused is guilty or innocent as they would then not be able to defend them to the full. Lawyers can some times be seen as blood suckers for having to defend these types of criminals, however if they were not defended the justice system will fall apart.
6. Lawyers observe a code of ethics and responsibility. If a lawyer knows that his client is doing an offense, he should report it to the court, that is his legal duty. The term "guilty" is used upon a person who is convicted of an offense after proper hearing and trial. A person is entitled to presumption of innocence until he is proven guilty by a fair and reasonable trial. That is part of his right to due process of law. You see, one can admit that he has killed someone, but he might have done it through self-defense. He might have ordered a genocide but it might be because that that is his religious belief. The point is he has some inherent rights, but that also has limits, the State has laws and transgressions of such will make the offender to be meted with the appropriate penalty because the State has also the primordial duty to protect its inhabitants from lawless elements. A lawyer has a duty to his client, to defend and air his side and to make amicable settlements. He can make his client admit his guilt before the court and bargain for a lesser penalty, or he can defend the client for reasons in accord with the law or procedure. The justice system may not be perfect but it is effective enough to punish criminals. A lawyer can decline a client based on legal grounds but cannot not refuse a client solely because he is guilty. Most lawyers are good.. some are bad.. thats probably the gist of it.
7. Lawyers, Solicitors, Barristers, call then what you will. They are nothing but leeches on society and the only thing they think about is MONEY. I remember a Duty Solicitor (One paid for by the State so that everyone is entitled to some legal representation in Court) when finding out that there was a youth in custody for sexual assault on a minor, who required his services, saying quite openly, "Well that must be worth £2000, plus VAT of course". That is what Solicitors are all about, money grabbing and I mean money grabbing. They charge about £100 or more per hour. The law is written by lawmen for lawmen.
8. lawyers defend the guilty because they are ethically bound to do so. If you retain a lawyer to help you defend a speeding ticket and tell the lawyer that you were indeed speeding, the lawyer is still bound to try to defend you. He cannot present perjured testimony but can still require the government to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and can still argue for a lesser fine if you are convicted. Those ethical obligations do not change with the nature of the crime.