Current Events > C/D: Lawyers who KNOWINGLY defend guilty clients should be punished too.

(+) Yeah! (+)

That would be dumb as hell
---

MC_BatCommander posted...

such as working out a deal to reduce jail time

Imagine thinking there's nothing wrong with them doing this. Wow. Just wow.

Of course, part of the problem here lies with the law itself allowing for this too, to be fair.

Dragon239 posted...

I mean, an admission is basically the only way how a lawyer would "knowingly" know his client is guilty.
It being taped was just to highlight how it'd be similar to any confession put forth as evidence. Even if it were unrecorded and he just whispered it in his lawyer's ear, the lawyer would "know" his client is guilty.

It's also the only way we'd know the lawyer knew, excepting like, the lawyer writing somewhere he got an admission, then defended them anyways, and people found that out.

TIL sting operations aren't a thing.
---

NotWhiteNinja posted...

Imagine thinking there's nothing wrong with them doing this. Wow. Just wow.

well you literally think that lawyers who fulfill someone's constitutional right to a defense should be punished so \_()_/
---

MC_BatCommander posted...

NotWhiteNinja posted...

Imagine thinking there's nothing wrong with them doing this. Wow. Just wow.

well you literally think that lawyers who fulfill someone's constitutional right to a defense should be punished so \_()_/

So I take it that anything in the constitution, you believe should be blindly upheld, and not questioned and possibly changed? Does that include the 2nd and 13th Amendments (since it's pretty rare to find someone who agrees with both)? (Yes, it would have to be through the proper process for passing an amendment. I'm not arguing against that.)

EDIT: I think I cited the wrong amendment here. One sec.
---

With that logic, TC, should we arrest fast food workers for assault for getting their customers fat?
---

NotWhiteNinja posted...

So I take it that anything in the constitution, you believe should be blindly upheld, and not questioned and possibly changed?

I think the right to a fair trial is incredibly important and one of the great things about this country, anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. although you're probably just shitposting anyways so I'll stop responding
---

DirkDiggles posted...

With that logic, TC, should we arrest fast food workers for assault for getting their customers fat?

The key difference here is that lawyers defending guilty clients are abusing technicalities or hiding facts. Fast food workers are providing a product to willing consumers who are well aware that said product is harmful to them and choose, of their own free will, to consume it anyway. The two aren't remotely comparable.
---

Its a dumb question but I understand what TC is getting at. For example Casey Anthonys attorney who was probably the one who came up with the stories he told in court. Id be okay with punishing attorneys who flat out lie in court.

Of course everyone needs a defendant.
---

NotWhiteNinja posted...

The key difference here is that lawyers defending guilty clients are abusing technicalities or hiding facts.

Evidence is the burden of the prosecution.
---

Yeah, this is definitely a two-weeks-of-karma kind of topic
---

NotWhiteNinja posted...

The key difference here is that lawyers defending guilty clients are abusing technicalities or hiding facts

No Lawyers defending guilty clients are making sure that their clients receive due process and their rights are not being violated,
---

I thought this was just something people used to attack Hillary for defending that child rapist, I didn't think anyone actually believed it.
---

That question demonstrates a large degree of ignorance regarding the justice system and the place of defense attorneys therein.

The rest of your posts demonstrate an unwillingness to learn.

Can you show us a trial where a defense lawyer covered up evidence for a not guilty verdict?
---