I still trying to figure out why people criticize and hate defense attorneys. And often for just doing their job. True in that job, you're actions may result in a bad guy's conviction. And sometimes they don't. Even conservative judge Anthony Kennedy said, we said, we don't like that. That's just how our system works. And even a defense attorney has a very important role in our legal system. Since ancient times he as been considered an officer of the court. He works for the government, and he has a very important role. He argues the defendant's case. In the RC Church, they even have a name for that. The advocatus diaboli, or Devil's advocate. It's a very important role. They argue a person could never become saint, if the Devil's advocate didn't do his job well too.
The sine qua non of any fair and impartial justice system lies in affording defendants adequate counsel regardless of their ability to pay.
Also wanted to add (and I won't have this as a separate thread, though it's long). The right to legal counsel in US courts is enshrined in the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that a criminal defendant has the right "to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence". And in Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963, the Supreme Court said the state must provide you with legal counsel too, if you can't afford it. Obviously they should. And in Strickland v. Washington, 1984, the Supreme Court confirmed, that you could claim your lawyer, or public defender, gave you ineffective assistance of counsel, if the attorney's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and his lawyer's deficient performance likely prejudiced the outcome of the case. That rarely happens in actually practice in the US though. Especially with public defenders. Public defenders have caseload concerns, they rarely are paid much, if at all really, I've heard. And they never give you the same quality of legal representation as even a, really, average lawyer would. And, from what I've heard, they sometimes conspire with the prosecution, to have you put away. If they think you're guilty anyways. If they have some preconceived notion of you or your social group. If they just don't care. That should be impossible from what I just said. But it happens. And the courts say it's okay. One time a public defenders showed up to court drunk every day. A lower court said that didn't show he was ineffective as a lawyer for the case, though. In 2007 Tara Lynn Grant was murdered and cut into pieces, reportedly in front of her children, by her husband, Stephen Grant. His public defender did a horrible job defending him. On purpose, the media reported. But not in any way that was unethical or illegal for a lawyer to do. His public defender said the judge should be lenient with him, because the way he killed her was at least merciful. What on earth does that mean? But they reported in the news, there was nothing Stephen Grant could do. Because his public defender did everything by the book. They did reform the public defender statutes in Michigan after the Tara Lynn Grant case. But not in every state. And the Supreme Court decisions on the right to counsel and right to a public defender are getting more and more ridiculous, they say, and the court gets packed with conservatives.
Plus, I've heard people say, many throughout my life actually, that lawyers are evil. They sometimes know that their client is guilty, and still try to have him found innocent. Well, the legal term in not guilty. And that just means the state failed to prove its case. Plus I was thinking. When a judge accepts a motion to suppress evidence, at that moment he's doing the same. He is ensuring the guilty party will be set free, this time due to a mistrial. And like Justice Anthony Kennedy said, judges don't like it. But that's the way our system works. And last I checked most people, including judges, still think it's the best. So what's your point?
