Lots of Lawyers Mad at [Bill] O'Reilly

FoxNews ^ | Thursday, July 25, 2002 | Bill O'Reilly

[Stone Mountain]

To me, this essay betrays an embarassing lack of understanding of our adversial system of justice. If he was proposing another system of justice, fine, we can evaluate it. But to say that defense lawyers are personally responsible for their clients that are found not guilty shows a complete lack of understanding of our system.

[jim35]

You're missing the whole point, that being, the morality is assualted when the lawer his client is guilty, and uses subvversion to gain his/her freedom. The idea is, this isn't justice, it's a perversion of justice.

[onedoug]

I asked in the sense that if you were a lawyer. Not a judge.

I would NEVER be a criminal defense attorney.

[onedoug]

"...shows a complete lack of understanding of our system.

I disagree. I think it shows that many lawyers, as individuals, are willing to be accessories to crimes.

[Stone Mountain]

Approximately 90% of all defendants who appear in court are guilty of the crime for which they are accused.

Source? Even if this were true, that leaves one out of ten people who are appearing in court despite being innocent of the crime for which they are accused. It is that 10% that we should be worried about. I believe that "Better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be jailed."

[drjimmy]

Helping a criminal, admitted or guilty by reason of evidence, makes you an accessory to the crime in my opinion.
The jury decides, "by reason of evidence," whether to convict someone of the crime for which they have been accused. If the jury finds them not guilty, they are not a criminal (on that charge). What part of innocent until proven guilty do you not understand?

[Canadian Outrage]

That was the case that did it for me also sinkspur. I was soooooooo disgusted with that. I cannot even look at Johnny Cochran on TV - I turn the channel immediately. He's an accomplise to slaughter and a parasite imo.

[onedoug]

"Better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be jailed."

Why stop there? Why not a hundred? A million?

We're human, and so fallible. Though the Constitution is the best hope yet of humankind to so protect us.

[discostu]

Bill's way off in never-never land. For one thing we've got nothing that shows Avila should have been convicted for the previous crimes, he's assuming that because we have an open and shut case against him now that means the other time was equally obvious. Further he's assuing that Avila's attorney knew of his guilt regardless of the quality of the prosecution's case.

[Stone Mountain]

I disagree. I think it shows that many lawyers, as individuals, are willing to be accessories to crimes.

In our system of justice, even a guilty man is entitled to representation. If a lawyer who would defend this man to the best of his abilities is considered an accomplice, then our system of justice fails. This is why I said it betrays a lack of understanding of our system. When an adversarial system is used to determine guilt, there must be advocates on each side willing to argue for their side. Sure it's an imperfect system, but it's better than just about anything else. Many would disagree with that, but I believe that protecting the rights of the innocent take precedence over punishing the guilty.

[alisasny]

But he is a partner in a private practice and the trustee job is pretty part time if you ask me.

Very very sad.

[Stone Mountain]

Why stop there? Why not a hundred? A million?

We're human, and so fallible. Though the Constitution is the best hope yet of humankind to so protect us.

I'm not sure I get your point. It seems that your last two sentences come close to contradicting each other. The constitution was written with the rights of the falsely accused in mind.

[discostu]

Not only won't most ask, they don't want you to volunteer guilt/ innocense info to them. They certainly don't want you telling them you did it, and they don't want you to lie to them.

[GSWarrior]

uh..I'm certainly not a lawyer, but what would be the correct course of action if a defense attorney knows his client is guilty, but also knows that the prosecutors don't have enough evidence, or have somehow skirted the rights of the accused?

[onedoug]

"...protecting the rights of the innocent take precedence over punishing the guilty.

Then no one goes over.

[Stone Mountain]

You're missing the whole point, that being, the morality is assualted when the lawer his client is guilty, and uses subvversion to gain his/her freedom. The idea is, this isn't justice, it's a perversion of justice.

This is begging the question. One is innocent until proved guilty. If the system is not able to prove someone is guilty, then he is innocent.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "subversion." In an adversarial system, any lawyer who doesn't use all of the tools at his disposal to defend his client is guilty of malpractice. If a lawyer sees a legal way to advocate for his client, he MUST do so.

[Stone Mountain]

uh..I'm certainly not a lawyer, but what would be the correct course of action if a defense attorney knows his client is guilty, but also knows that the prosecutors don't have enough evidence, or have somehow skirted the rights of the accused?

Well, of course the first issue is how does the lawyer "know" his client is guilty. However, that question aside, the lawyer is duty-bound to provide the best possible defense for his client. If he is not capable of doing so for any reason whatsoever, he must pass on the case and recuse himself. This is relatively rare, but it happens - sometimes even in the middle of a trial. Once in a while, a lawyer will recuse himself because he knows that his client is about to give false testimony, and although the lawyer must advocate for his client, he can't do so using illegal methods. It puts everyone in an awkward position - the lawyer can't explain why he is dropping the case without betraying lawyer-client confidentiality, so he usually can't say anything. Although when a lawyer drops out suddenly in the middle of a case, everyone kinda suspects what is going on...

[Stone Mountain]

Then no one goes over.

Sorry, I don't understand...

[onedoug]

"If he is not capable of doing so for any reason whatsoever...."

I think this goes to O'Reilly's point. We make choices, for good or evil. He said he wouldn't do it. Neither would I.

[taxcontrol]

Perhaps you missed a point here. The Constitution says the accused shall have the ADVICE of counsel. Counsel can advise a guilty plea.