Lots of Lawyers Mad at [Bill] O'Reilly

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

[Stone Mountain]

Why do you also include in these rights the right to go free after committing a crime?????

I said nothing of the sort. I simply was pointing out that public defenders have just as much obligation to defend their clients as private lawyers do. How you got the above from that is beyond me...

[loveliberty]

You responded to my comment: America's Founders would be astounded to find that many of today's defense lawyers believe it to be their constitutional duty to help guilty persons avoid the consequences of their acts. Their actions are in direct opposition to the Founders' understanding of justice (meaning that each person is equal before the law and should receive that which is due him--no more, no less).

Your words: "Absolutely wrong. The Founders came from the same kind of adversarial legal system we have today, a system that predates the Constitution."

You missed my point. Of course, the Founders advocated an adversarial system as the best protection for liberty. The key clause in my statement was: "today's defense lawyers believe it to be their constitutional duty to help guilty persons avoid the consequences of their acts." It is that aspect of today's system, I believe, that the Founders would find disturbing and opposing their concept of justice.

Quote for me any one of the Founders who believed that justice demanded that a defense attorney should assist in freeing a guilty person.

While even a guilty person should be afforded counsel and rights to a jury trial before his/her peers, they believed, the Founders, IMHO, would never approve of the misuse and abuse of the adversarial system which is practiced today (witness the O. J. case and other equally bizarre miscarriages of justice).

[cinFLA]

I said nothing of the sort. I simply was pointing out that public defenders have just as much obligation to defend their clients as private lawyers do. How you got the above from that is beyond me...

Mother drowns two children, lawyer claims she was hexed, she goes free!!!!! Justice prevails again!

[Stone Mountain]

Mother drowns two children, lawyer claims she was hexed, she goes free!!!!! Justice prevails again!

This is what passes for a discussion to you? What in the world does this case you just brought up have to do with the obligations of private lawyers vs. public defenders? You have said nothing that casts doubt on any of my contentions.

[cinFLA]

You have said nothing that casts doubt on any of my contentions.

Your contention was that lawyers (private or public) have an obligation to try to get their client off. Do you still agree that freeing this woman is justice served?

[cinFLA]

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

What is your limit? "Better 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be jailed"? 1000? 1,000,000?

[Stone Mountain]

I'm not sure. But since you asked, what's your acceptable limit?

[Stone Mountain]

Your contention was that lawyers (private or public) have an obligation to try to get their client off.

Actually, I said that public and private lawyers have an EQUAL OBLIGATION to defend their clients to the best of their abilitites. I stand by that statement.

Do you still agree that freeing this woman is justice served?

Well, for one thing, I never said nor implied that freeing this woman is justice served. Does justice always get served under our system? Of course not. But it is my belief that justice is more served under this adversarial system than almost any other that I have heard.

[cinFLA]

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.

Have you never heard of ethics? By the above, I presume you think DA's should subvert the truth in order to free the scum of the earth including the women who drowned her two children and then claimed she was "hexed"!

[E Rocc]

It's all about the money.

To some, perhaps. But when it's all said and done, it's all about the Constitution. Avila was entitled to legal representation. If he didn't get one, the court would have appointed a public defender (on the taxpayers dime). If his lawyer's didn't make a full effort, the trial was liable to be thrown out.

O'Reilly's been trying to distinguish himself from Limbaugh lately by playing the populist card. He's really damaged his credibility by doing it.

-Eric

[Stone Mountain]

Have you never heard of ethics? By the above, I presume you think DA's should subvert the truth in order to free the scum of the earth including the women who drowned her two children and then claimed she was "hexed"!

Well, I tried. Now it's to the point that I can't even understand your question. Why would a DA want to free the scum of the earth? I will note again, as I have noted before, that in advocating for clients, lawyers are not ethically allowed to lie or countenance perjury.

You won't reply to any of the arguments that I made in answering your previous statements - and now it seems that you are now combing the thread looking for statements that I have made that you can erect a straw man around. I was hoping for a more serious discussion of these issues...