[Pharmboy]

The lawyers always talk about the protection of the innocent when they are defending themselves defending a (usually) guilty suspect. Well, I have a question for all the fancy schmancy Perry Masons out there: what about the innocents who will be damaged by getting your guilty client off?

Lying and misleading and gaming the system for your all-important client leaves future innocents open to his robbing, assaulting, raping, killing, extorting, etc. Right?

And while I'm at it, how come Perry mason never had ONE, not ONE, guilty client in all his years on TV? Were we supposed to believe that everyone indicted by DAs was really innocent?? WHAT PERFECT BS THEY FED US AS KIDS.

[Stone Mountain]

And while I'm at it, how come Perry mason never had ONE, not ONE, guilty client in all his years on TV?

For the same reason that Joe Friday always got his man?

[parsifal]

Well, I have a question for all the fancy schmancy Perry Masons out there: what about the innocents who will be damaged by getting your guilty client off?

The answer is, what about all the citizens who will be damaged if the gov't gets to do what it wants with people. Lawyers, in one sense, do not defend a particular client---they defend the system as a whole.

And FWIW, one of Perry Mason's clients was convicted. Sort of. See "The Case of The Terrified Typist." 1956, I think. parsy the all-knowing,

[Polybius]

And while I'm at it, how come Perry mason never had ONE, not ONE, guilty client in all his years on TV?

Come to think about it, did Perry Mason ever have a single case that went to the jury?