re: Defense Attorneys, have you ever represented a client that you knew was a colossal POS?

quote:

---

Ask the attorney who said that when he had no defense, he would attack cops not following procedure

---

Well if they didn't follow procedures/the law is that an issue to you?

Or should there be no safeguards or limits to that investigatory/prosecutorial power?

quote:

---

We are talking about lawyers using whataboutisms

---

This is now at least your third pivot

quote:

---

We are talking about lawyers using whataboutisms to defend obviously or admittedly guilty people. I'm not talking wiretaps in innocent people's homes fishing for crimes

---

Do you have the same energy for prosecutors who personally don't believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty yet they have enough circumstantial evidence to build and argue a case against the defendant, using anything they can (including technicalities) to convict, because they feel like they can convince a jury of guilt and get the W? Many even falsify, manipulate, and suppress evidence, and get people to lie in order to support their case.

Did you even read that blog post? This is embarrassing.

I didn't read, but the defendants in My Cousin Vinnie were innocent without technicality

quote:

---

Why should that be tied to the guilt/innocence of someone providing it has no bearing on the facts of the case?

---

Again, this is embarrassing.

quote:

---

Did you even read that blog post? This is embarrassing.

---

It's the first one that came up, but did you read it?

quote:

---

For example, you can use the movie to discuss criminal procedure, courtroom decorum, professional responsibility, unethical behavior, the role of the judge in a trial, efficient cross-examination, the role of expert witnesses, and effective trial advocacy.

---

quote:

---

The truth is for philosophers and not really applicable

---

I bet you don’t let your clients say that when they are being sworn in.

You make a good point. There is nothing moral about killing another human being.
I would argue, however, that the lawyer has freedom of choice while the soldier often does not, at least not when the penalty to disobey orders carries a consequence of jail or death.
The very basis of fighting a war in many cases, is purported to be a moral one. It is made out to be a battle of good vs evil, and the reasons why you consider your side is good are morally good reasons. As long as civilians aren’t targeted and children aren’t used, I would consider the war to be ethically good. Even the brutal killing of the enemy can be considered ethical since it will bring a faster end to the war itself. And there is nothing more ethical than self preservation. My point is, what is considered morally and ethically good or bad in war align, regardless of whether the war is just.
In the legal profession, lying is not only okay, it is absolutely necessary to do the job (ie provide a defense to a scumbag that is guilty). The ethics involved in doing this directly contradict the morals. And unlike the soldier, the choice is not life or death.
Sorry for the long reply. If you wouldn’t have made such a good point, my answer could have been shorter

quote:

---

And this also ignores that 75-80% of all criminal defense representation is done by public defenders.

---

That's a statistic that should make a lot more people ask, 'why?'