This Casey Anthony case has me wondering about lawyers

[tennhouse2]

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

Originally Posted by TennHouse2

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

how do they feel representing a murderer or child molester that they honestly feel is
guilty how do you feel putting that person back on the streets

so do you think they should quit on the person there representing because everyone thinks there guilty? What about innocent people put in the wrong situation that everyone thinks are guilty? 

 

no.  I didn't say they're representing someone who everyone thinks is guilty,  I said someone they know or even believe is guilty.
I

Keyword Believe. At the end of the day the only people who KNOW what happened are the people that were there. The day lawyers stop representing people they Believe are guilty is the day that alot more innocent people start winding up in prison.
again i ask what about innocent people that wind up in the wrong situation and are believed to be guilty? 
 

 

[kenji714]

Originally Posted by Nikekidwonder

 at this whole black vs white arguments in here
Do you know how many black people are behind bars right now ?

Do you know how many innocent  Latinos and black's that didn't even get to see trial are in prison right now ?  

You can't be put in jail until they found you guilty or you PLEAD Guilty

 

[kenji714]

Originally Posted by Nikekidwonder

 at this whole black vs white arguments in here
Do you know how many black people are behind bars right now ?

Do you know how many innocent  Latinos and black's that didn't even get to see trial are in prison right now ?  

You can't be put in jail until they found you guilty or you PLEAD Guilty

 

[servechilled81]

Originally Posted by TennHouse2

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

Originally Posted by TennHouse2


so do you think they should quit on the person there representing because everyone thinks there guilty? What about innocent people put in the wrong situation that everyone thinks are guilty? 

 

no.  I didn't say they're representing someone who everyone thinks is guilty,  I said someone they know or even believe is guilty.
I

Keyword Believe. At the end of the day the only people who KNOW what happened are the people that were there. The day lawyers stop representing people they Believe are guilty is the day that alot more innocent people start winding up in prison.

just edited my previous reply.  But i'm not bashing criminal defense lawyers or saying someone shouldn't be represented, just how do the lawyers feel after it's done?
Sure we all can say only those involved know what happened, but what would be the point any investigation or evidence or trial, to prove guilt or innocence

if that was all it came down to?

 

[servechilled81]

Originally Posted by TennHouse2

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

Originally Posted by TennHouse2


so do you think they should quit on the person there representing because everyone thinks there guilty? What about innocent people put in the wrong situation that everyone thinks are guilty? 

 

no.  I didn't say they're representing someone who everyone thinks is guilty,  I said someone they know or even believe is guilty.
I

Keyword Believe. At the end of the day the only people who KNOW what happened are the people that were there. The day lawyers stop representing people they Believe are guilty is the day that alot more innocent people start winding up in prison.

just edited my previous reply.  But i'm not bashing criminal defense lawyers or saying someone shouldn't be represented, just how do the lawyers feel after it's done?
Sure we all can say only those involved know what happened, but what would be the point any investigation or evidence or trial, to prove guilt or innocence

if that was all it came down to?

 

[e3lal]

I always wanted to make this thread to see people's opinions too.  I get so angry at corporate lawyers that are defending a guilty company (ex. all those oil spills that never get settled).

 

[e3lal]

I always wanted to make this thread to see people's opinions too.  I get so angry at corporate lawyers that are defending a guilty company (ex. all those oil spills that never get settled).

 

[sonoftony]

lawyers gotta eat too 

 

[sonoftony]

lawyers gotta eat too 

 

[big j 33]

Originally Posted by useref15

America, where somebody can shoot themself by accident ( Plaxico Burres) and spend two years in jail, but a women kills her daughter and receives nothing. Gotta love it.

Despite being made an example of, Burress committed a crime that was without question and had no doubt. He illegally had a gun and it discharged in a public setting. For that he served time according to the law. You don't know if Casey did murder her child as a fact... simply put, no one can know 100% without any doubt or question, that she did it. It can seem like it, all signs could point to it, and other possibilities could seem absurd, but without the physical evidence or even a confession, you don't know that. 
It may seem hard to understand how defense attorneys can defend people they "know" or even strongly believe are guilty, but that's not their job. Their job is to present a defense of their client and it's the job of the prosecution to argue for a conviction using the available evidence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, if the defense can present a reasonable doubt, then you can't find the defendant guilty. It's the job of the jury to find one guilty or not guilty... not the defense attorney.

It's not their job to decide guilt or innocence. Don't forget not all defense attorneys are defending OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony, there's obviously a fair share of innocent people who deserve their fair trial and you compromise the innocent if the defense takes the law into their own hands.

 

[tennhouse2]

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

Originally Posted by TennHouse2

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

no.  I didn't say they're representing someone who everyone thinks is guilty,  I said someone they know or even believe is guilty.
I

Keyword Believe. At the end of the day the only people who KNOW what happened are the people that were there. The day lawyers stop representing people they Believe are guilty is the day that alot more innocent people start winding up in prison.

just edited my previous reply.  But i'm not bashing criminal defense lawyers or saying someone shouldn't be represented, just how do the lawyers feel after it's done?
Sure we all can say only those involved know what happened, but what would be the point any investigation or evidence or trial, to prove guilt or innocence

if that was all it came down to?

thats now it all comes down to because we dont know whether the person is lying or not, which is why we use evidence and etc...not what we believe......and again the lawyer doesn't know for a fact whether the person there defending did or not, for all he knows he just helped an innocent person get off..and in the end whether he thinks she did it or not he should be happy to know he did his job to make sure that everyone gets a fair trial. 

 

[big j 33]

Originally Posted by useref15

America, where somebody can shoot themself by accident ( Plaxico Burres) and spend two years in jail, but a women kills her daughter and receives nothing. Gotta love it.

Despite being made an example of, Burress committed a crime that was without question and had no doubt. He illegally had a gun and it discharged in a public setting. For that he served time according to the law. You don't know if Casey did murder her child as a fact... simply put, no one can know 100% without any doubt or question, that she did it. It can seem like it, all signs could point to it, and other possibilities could seem absurd, but without the physical evidence or even a confession, you don't know that. 
It may seem hard to understand how defense attorneys can defend people they "know" or even strongly believe are guilty, but that's not their job. Their job is to present a defense of their client and it's the job of the prosecution to argue for a conviction using the available evidence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, if the defense can present a reasonable doubt, then you can't find the defendant guilty. It's the job of the jury to find one guilty or not guilty... not the defense attorney.

It's not their job to decide guilt or innocence. Don't forget not all defense attorneys are defending OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony, there's obviously a fair share of innocent people who deserve their fair trial and you compromise the innocent if the defense takes the law into their own hands.

 

[tennhouse2]

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

Originally Posted by TennHouse2

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

no.  I didn't say they're representing someone who everyone thinks is guilty,  I said someone they know or even believe is guilty.
I

Keyword Believe. At the end of the day the only people who KNOW what happened are the people that were there. The day lawyers stop representing people they Believe are guilty is the day that alot more innocent people start winding up in prison.

just edited my previous reply.  But i'm not bashing criminal defense lawyers or saying someone shouldn't be represented, just how do the lawyers feel after it's done?
Sure we all can say only those involved know what happened, but what would be the point any investigation or evidence or trial, to prove guilt or innocence

if that was all it came down to?

thats now it all comes down to because we dont know whether the person is lying or not, which is why we use evidence and etc...not what we believe......and again the lawyer doesn't know for a fact whether the person there defending did or not, for all he knows he just helped an innocent person get off..and in the end whether he thinks she did it or not he should be happy to know he did his job to make sure that everyone gets a fair trial. 

 

[persiafly]

You always hear "blame the game, not the player," and it's usually stated flippantly about cheating on women or dealing drugs, but it actually does apply here.

We have a legal system. Within that legal system, defendants are given certain rights, and the prosecution is given certain burdens. Defense attorneys are assigned the task of representing the defendant, to make sure that the defendant gets all of the rights that she is ENTITLED TO WITHIN THAT SYSTEM.

If you have a problem here, it's with the legal system, and specifically with the "beyond a reasonable doubt standard."

As an attorney, you have to represent your client to the best of your abilities. That is the case whether you represent the state, or a corporation, or a defendant, or whoever. It is your SWORN DUTY to ensure that your client is given every chance to prove her innocence.

Defense attorneys MUST represent all of their clients the same way, regardless of their own inclinations about what happened in the case. You're not there to judge, you're there as LEGAL COUNSEL.

The funny thing is that Defense Attorneys are often the most good-hearted and compassionate people coming out of law schools. They often could make boatloads of money representing corporations, but they choose to defend people who have been accused of crimes. Countless times, those people would be accused of crimes they didn't commit were it not for the diligence of their attorneys. Other times, people that probably did commit crimes are freed because of that same diligence. But you can't have it both ways. You can't start telling defense attorneys to represent clients differently based on their own beliefs and opinions about the case.

Blame the game, not the players. Blame the system, not the attorneys.

 

[persiafly]

You always hear "blame the game, not the player," and it's usually stated flippantly about cheating on women or dealing drugs, but it actually does apply here.

We have a legal system. Within that legal system, defendants are given certain rights, and the prosecution is given certain burdens. Defense attorneys are assigned the task of representing the defendant, to make sure that the defendant gets all of the rights that she is ENTITLED TO WITHIN THAT SYSTEM.

If you have a problem here, it's with the legal system, and specifically with the "beyond a reasonable doubt standard."

As an attorney, you have to represent your client to the best of your abilities. That is the case whether you represent the state, or a corporation, or a defendant, or whoever. It is your SWORN DUTY to ensure that your client is given every chance to prove her innocence.

Defense attorneys MUST represent all of their clients the same way, regardless of their own inclinations about what happened in the case. You're not there to judge, you're there as LEGAL COUNSEL.

The funny thing is that Defense Attorneys are often the most good-hearted and compassionate people coming out of law schools. They often could make boatloads of money representing corporations, but they choose to defend people who have been accused of crimes. Countless times, those people would be accused of crimes they didn't commit were it not for the diligence of their attorneys. Other times, people that probably did commit crimes are freed because of that same diligence. But you can't have it both ways. You can't start telling defense attorneys to represent clients differently based on their own beliefs and opinions about the case.

Blame the game, not the players. Blame the system, not the attorneys.

 

[jorts24]

The state didnt do its job thats what it comes down too. Sad that she got off but you cant be locking people up when there is a chance they didnt commit the crime. I mean they couldent even say how the girl died.

 

[jorts24]

The state didnt do its job thats what it comes down too. Sad that she got off but you cant be locking people up when there is a chance they didnt commit the crime. I mean they couldent even say how the girl died.

 

[servechilled81]

Originally Posted by TennHouse2

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

Originally Posted by TennHouse2


Keyword Believe. At the end of the day the only people who KNOW what happened are the people that were there. The day lawyers stop representing people they Believe are guilty is the day that alot more innocent people start winding up in prison.

just edited my previous reply.  But i'm not bashing criminal defense lawyers or saying someone shouldn't be represented, just how do the lawyers feel after it's done?
Sure we all can say only those involved know what happened, but what would be the point any investigation or evidence or trial, to prove guilt or innocence

if that was all it came down to?

thats now it all comes down to because we dont know whether the person is lying or not, which is why we use evidence and etc...not what we believe......and again the lawyer doesn't know for a fact whether the person there defending did or not, for all he knows he just helped an innocent person get off..and in the end whether he thinks she did it or not he should be happy to know he did his job to make sure that everyone gets a fair trial. 

bruh, we're going in circles here, just wondering about their thoughts on a personal level, 
after investigating, evidence etc... someone who signs point to guilty, are they now just trying to convince the jury of something that may not be true, rather than prove actual innocence
 My comment from the beginning was never meant to be deriding.

 

[servechilled81]

Originally Posted by TennHouse2

Originally Posted by ServeChilled81

Originally Posted by TennHouse2


Keyword Believe. At the end of the day the only people who KNOW what happened are the people that were there. The day lawyers stop representing people they Believe are guilty is the day that alot more innocent people start winding up in prison.

just edited my previous reply.  But i'm not bashing criminal defense lawyers or saying someone shouldn't be represented, just how do the lawyers feel after it's done?
Sure we all can say only those involved know what happened, but what would be the point any investigation or evidence or trial, to prove guilt or innocence

if that was all it came down to?

thats now it all comes down to because we dont know whether the person is lying or not, which is why we use evidence and etc...not what we believe......and again the lawyer doesn't know for a fact whether the person there defending did or not, for all he knows he just helped an innocent person get off..and in the end whether he thinks she did it or not he should be happy to know he did his job to make sure that everyone gets a fair trial. 

bruh, we're going in circles here, just wondering about their thoughts on a personal level, 
after investigating, evidence etc... someone who signs point to guilty, are they now just trying to convince the jury of something that may not be true, rather than prove actual innocence
 My comment from the beginning was never meant to be deriding.

 

[hankmoody]

Originally Posted by hongcouver604

Originally Posted by scshift

 one of the least respected professions out there. 

 

[hankmoody]

Originally Posted by hongcouver604

Originally Posted by scshift

 one of the least respected professions out there. 

 

[shogun]

You can't be that naive.  Lawyers want to be good at what they do, which is win cases.  It doesn't matter what they think.
Watch The Devil's Advocate.

 

[shogun]

You can't be that naive.  Lawyers want to be good at what they do, which is win cases.  It doesn't matter what they think.
Watch The Devil's Advocate.

 

[ill steelo]

Originally Posted by PersiaFly

You always hear "blame the game, not the player," and it's usually stated flippantly about cheating on women or dealing drugs, but it actually does apply here.

If you have a problem here, it's with the legal system, and specifically with the "beyond a reasonable doubt standard."

 

[ill steelo]

Originally Posted by PersiaFly

You always hear "blame the game, not the player," and it's usually stated flippantly about cheating on women or dealing drugs, but it actually does apply here.

If you have a problem here, it's with the legal system, and specifically with the "beyond a reasonable doubt standard."