Under the Constitution of the United States of America, each person is entitled to a lawyer if they are facing possible jail time, or death. A lot of the lawyers involved do NOT make a lot of money out of those cases. More than a few work for public defenders offices, and get a flat salary win or lose.
Why Do Lawyers Defend Monsters?
- Thread starter Tecumsehsbones
- Start date
So? All that means is that not all lawyers are into the money end of it. I included a link in my last post about it.
They also make good money getting justice for innocent people. Who would you pick for a lawyer if you were charged with murder?
If monsters walk, it just means the defence did a better job than the prosecution, which is not an argument for restricting anyone's rights under the law, nor is it a knock against defence lawyers. O.J. Simpson was acquitted largely because defence counsel offered a statistical argument that was true, compelling, and irrelevant, and nobody on the prosecution side or the jury spotted it for the fallacy it was. The argument was that only one in about 2500 men who batter their wives go on to murder them, so O.J. was extremely unlikely to be the murderer, and that added up to reasonable doubt for the jury. In statistical terms, that's the wrong sample space. The relevant statistic is that of the battered wives who are murdered, 98% of them are done in by their husbands, which makes it almost certain that O.J. did it.
Last edited:
There is no such thing as 'relevant statistics' in court. Statistics apply to populations, not to individuals.
Perhaps, though I think I'd dispute that in another discussion, statistics are the basis of assessing probabilities when it's impossible to know a priori what they are, and that's what the jury was tasked with deciding: how likely is it that O.J. murdered Nicole Brown. O.J.'s defence counsel got away with it, and given that a statistical argument was allowed at all, somebody should have recognized that the one offered was the wrong one.
I agree, since they chose to admit stats, it would have been the preferable one. But convicting or releasing someone based on statistics is grossly flawed. Even if only 5% of beaten women killed are killed by their husbands, it wouldn't mean he didn't do it.
People commit the flaw of trying to apply statistics to individuals way too often. I tend to think of it as quasi-scientific bigotry.
I dont think anyone was saying get rid of defence lawyers, but asking how they defend people they know to be guilty. Or how do they sleep at night if they happen to get a murderer or rapist off. If they believe or know their client is not guilty - well thats different.
Back in the day, I don't think it started out that way (but that probably only lasted about two days). I think the idea was to see that every accused got a fair trial, which would be ideal. As far as Zimmerman goes I think he needed defending because he was not guilty.
" Why choose to represent a man accused of turning the Boston Marathon finish line into a war zone?"
Stupid f**king question!!! Everyone who goes to trial starts out by being "accused".