Jailhouse Logic, or "Macco's Razor"

[Suddenly]

My friend, I think you are the only one here in these forums that is not like that.

Are you saying I lack passion?

Just kidding. I'd like to think you are right (except for the "only" part), but if I did, you would likely wind up being wrong.

Does bring up another question. Why is a "passionate" debate considered a good thing? Wouldn't casual disinterest lead to a better examination of issues? Probably a topic for another thread...

 

[a_unique_person]

I gotta ask.

I know you are (legally? ethically?) bound to do everything you can for a guy like this, but have you been confronted by someone who did something so heinous, so awful, that you give (or want to give) less than 100%? In those cases, how do you force yourself to try to get these creeps out?

I am an expert on law, as I watch Law'run'Order sometimes.

Apart from that, I was talking to a lawyer, here in Australia, and according to him, you are not supposed to defend someone you know to be guilty. You can only advise them to plead guilty, etc.

Only a crooked lawyer will try to get someone off a crime they know was committed by their client.

However, on L&O, they seem to do anything to get their client off, and seem to say that that is their obligation.

 

[Suddenly]

I am an expert on law, as I watch Law'run'Order sometimes.

Apart from that, I was talking to a lawyer, here in Australia, and according to him, you are not supposed to defend someone you know to be guilty. You can only advise them to plead guilty, etc.

Only a crooked lawyer will try to get someone off a crime they know was committed by their client.

However, on L&O, they seem to do anything to get their client off, and seem to say that that is their obligation.

Much different story in the United States. You can't put on evidence you know to be false, but you can argue that the state has not met their burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. No matter the situation, a defendant has a right to a fair jury trial with the assistance of counsel.

In fact, here, only a crooked lawyer would not do their best to get their client off (within the rules) regardless of personal opinion as to guilt.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

In fact, here, only a crooked lawyer would not do their best to get their client off (within the rules) regardless of personal opinion as to guilt.

That's exactly why I never could have become a lawyer. Sooner or later I would have to prosecute someone I felt was guilty or defend someone I felt was innocent. I don't know that I could maintain the level of objectivity needed to do that.

I think I will stick to computers.

 

[Suddenly]

That's exactly why I never could have become a lawyer. Sooner or later I would have to prosecute someone I felt was guilty or defend someone I felt was innocent. I don't know that I could maintain the level of objectivity needed to do that.

I think I will stick to computers.

I can dig it.

 

[Yahzi]

Sooner or later I would have to prosecute someone I felt was guilty or defend someone I felt was innocent.

My favorite court case:

Guy brings his son over to house he shares with girlfriend. Girlfriend is currently at work. Girlfriend's dog bites boy. Boy's mother (guy's ex-wife) forces Animal Control to prosecute girlfriend for the bite.

In court, during the trial, the prosecutor describes girlfriend as an "exemplary dog owner" and "not at fault." He explains that the law requires her to be held responsible for her dog anyway. Now that is an argument I could not advance for whatever measly sum they pay this poor guy.

A few more details about the case: Animal Control "interviewed" the dog to determine if it was viscious. The dog scored "0" on all tests of aggression, and Animal Control concluded the animal was as gentle as its tests could measure. The judge was so concerend about the mother's influence and motivation that when the kid took the stand, the judge made his mother and stepfather and siblings leave the courtroom. Finally, Animal Control managed to "lose" all the photos of the kid's injury, thus failing to have standard evidence to present at court. Consequently the judge found that the state had not met its burden of proof.

Every single person involved in this case understood that it was just about the ex-wife trying to make her ex's life hell, and yet they went through all the motions anyway. That's something I don't think I could do.


Suddenly, I think you have a brilliant strategy. I couldn't imagine a better way to handle the situation.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I was very backwards. I meant prosecute someone I felt was innocent or defend someone I felt was guilty.

Sorry if I made no farging sense whatsoever.

 

[Suddenly]

I was very backwards. I meant prosecute someone I felt was innocent or defend someone I felt was guilty.

Sorry if I made no farging sense whatsoever.

Quite the opposite. I thought it made plenty of sense.

As a defense lawyer, I find it much easier to remain objective when a person is or is very likely guilty. Much easier to maintain a professional distance and focus on the technical aspects of developing a theory of defense. Plus, less pressure.

When a person in innocent it is a struggle to remain objective. Emotions can affect judgement, and sometimes it is hard to develop a defense that conveys exactly why this person is not guilty of the charge. The pressure can be intense. I've never had a nightmare about a guilty client, but the innocent can play with your mind for months after, even if you win there is a "what if" aspect that chills the blood. You just want to run over in front of he jury and just tell them that you know your client didn't do it. It plays havoc with professional discipline necessary to present a good case. There is a constant struggle to control these emotions.