Replies

StoneMountain said: One is innocent until proved guilty. If the system is not able to prove someone is guilty, then he is innocent. No, "if the system is not able to prove someone is guilty, then he is not "innocent," he may simply have escaped punishment (witness O. J.). He may be 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.

Pardon me, but this is precisely the premise which has brought us to where we are today and threatens to undermine the concept of justice well understood by the founding generation when they instituted our constitutional protections. It is the faulty premise promulgated by law schools and the Dershowitz's of the world, and it has nothing to do with doing justice or preserving the principles of our constitution.

It deals more with deception, distortion, and an "anything goes if it gets my client off" attitude, including inciting racial emotions, grasping at procedural straws that have nothing to do with guilt or innocence, and everything to do with putting "notches" on the defense attorney's gun for the greatest number of "wins" (call that "losses" for the society who must have these guilty criminals living in its midst).

StoneMountain said: One is innocent until proved guilty. If the system is not able to prove someone is guilty, then he is innocent. No, "if the system is not able to prove someone is guilty, then he is not "innocent," he may simply have escaped punishment (witness O. J.). He may be innocent.

I should have been more clear. I meant he was innocent in the eyes of the law, not necessarily innocent of the crime itself. I think we agree here.

grasping at procedural straws that have nothing to do with guilt or innocence...

Why do you think those procedures exist?

If a lawyer sees a legal way to advocate for his client, he MUST do so. Pardon me, but this is precisely the premise which has brought us to where we are today and threatens to undermine the concept of justice well understood by the founding generation when they instituted our constitutional protections. It is the faulty premise promulgated by law schools and the Dershowitz's of the world, and it has nothing to do with doing justice or preserving the principles of our constitution.

I disagree with you about the constitution - I believe that the priciples of our constitution provide for a vigorous defense of the accused. If a lawyer does not advocate for his client to the best of his ability under the law, then the adversarial system we have becomes meaningless.

Since you don't believe that a defense lawyer should advocate for his client to the best of his ability under the law, then what should the mandate of a defense lawyer be?