"Poll question: you're a lawyer: would you defend a sex offender?"
for the sake of the poll, the person did exactly what they're accused of doing.
also, you can make the sex offense as severe as it takes for you to scrunch your face up like NAH FUCK THAT THAT'S FUCKED UP. you can make the victim whoever you need to make them.
so
would you defend them?
Poll result (15 votes)
yup. everyone is entitled to a defense in our justice system
While YUP, sex offenders, wife beats, child abusers...etc are scum and I wouldn't shed a tear if anything happened to them (shieet, I might even give to a go fund me)...they deserve equal protection under the law.
Maybe if I was a rich white guy I would feel different, but as a minority I know how easy it is for the wheels of justice to turn into a torture rack. Considering how American cops, DA's are so easy to know in their 'gut' that innocent minorities 'did it'...id want the legal checks and balances in play even if it gives a chance for a bad guy to get away.
12. "not specific to those cases but in general:" In response to Reply # 11 Tue Feb-14-17 10:49 AM by BigJazz
does it matter to you whether or not you think your client did it? not what can be proven and not whether or not a law was broken...i'm talking about your gut telling you they did it or they didn't do it.
does that matter to you?
*** I ain't lyin. This shit i'm making up is true...
13. "I couldn't do it...but if you sign up for being a lawyer, you gotta." In response to Reply # 0
-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79594 posts
Tue Feb-14-17 10:59 AM
18. "one who did it? fuck no.. what am I defending? " In response to Reply # 0
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
19. "I've never done criminal defense, but" In response to Reply # 0
it seems very clear that the worse the crime that the person is alleged to have committed, the more likely the jury is to convict, irrespective of whether the evidence is there.
I believe in the rights of the accused. Were I a criminal defense attorney, I would not ask my client whether or not s/he had committed the crime.
And frankly, I listen to a lot of true crime podcasts, and I am uniformly disgusted when people express anger with criminal defense attorneys. They wouldn't be so self-fucking-righteous if THEY were the ones accused of a horrendous crime.
~ ~ ~ All meetings end in separation All acquisition ends in dispersion All life ends in death - The Buddha
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79594 posts
Tue Feb-14-17 03:23 PM
29. "my uncle is a high profile attorney" In response to Reply # 19
He said the thrill is in seeing if he can use the law to win. He also said he doesn't want to know if you did it because he wants to go in hard as hell and that type of info puts him at a disadvantage.
I still can't see how anyone would defend a sex offender who they know did that shit.
Nope. I couldn't take that trial.
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
63. "I know you are paraphrasing" In response to Reply # 29
but I really hope that the criminal defense bar isn't doing it for the thrills.
When I was in law school, I met a judge who saw a lot of criminal cases, and he was super duper conservative, and even he said that the criminal defense bar is necessary in order to keep the government actors on the right side of the law. But I feel like that's a commitment to duty, not to thrills.
~ ~ ~ All meetings end in separation All acquisition ends in dispersion All life ends in death - The Buddha
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79594 posts
Tue Feb-14-17 06:37 PM
64. "I'm definitely paraphrasing" In response to Reply # 63
My uncle is good so he must be doing something right
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
27. "I'm talking about the moral question..." In response to Reply # 24
Which I think the original post was about.
Your duty is to deliver a not guilty verdict. But even in the case where it is pretty much certain that isn't going to happen, the defense lawyer still plays an important role.
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79594 posts
Tue Feb-14-17 03:26 PM
30. "Besides being mentally off I think the only defense " In response to Reply # 28
Is to paint the accuser as a liar or misremembering what happened.
I couldn't do that shit tho... especially if I know that POS is guilty.
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
31. "I'm no lawyer, but I can imagine that it's like any other crime" In response to Reply # 28
challenging what charges can or can't stand based on evidence/testimony, what evidence/testimony is or isn't in play based on procedure, and what that evidence/testimony does or doesn't prove
41. "what does that have to do with your question re defense strategy?" In response to Reply # 36 Tue Feb-14-17 03:50 PM by dba_BAD
the strategy is the same:
challenge the charges based on how they are or aren't supported challenge the evidence/testimony reclaim ground on what the remaining evidence/testimony does or doesn't prove
56. "OUR CLIENTS DECIDE if they want trial, homie." In response to Reply # 45
THE CLIENTS.
if my client wants a trial then s/he's gonna have one (unless the case is dismissed). period. that's the law. that's the Constitution at work. i can't force my client to resolve a case if s/he doesn't want to resolve it.
if my client DOESN'T want a trial then there's not gonna be one. even if i think s/he should have a trial. if s/he wants to resolve it w/o trial then that's what happens. even if they have to do an open plea before a judge. it may happen against my advice.
the client drives the bus. we don't.
yeah sometimes i've had to defend clients in cases where there was no good defense. oh well. some times we won - usually we lost. them's the breaks. in all of those as in all cases my client decided s/he wanted trial after hearing my advice. they may have gone against my advice. oops. oh well.
43. "it doesn't work like this. " In response to Reply # 28 Tue Feb-14-17 04:08 PM by SoWhat
>what's a feasible defense in a courtroom for something like >kid touching?
i develop a defense from the facts of the case. i don't defend 'kid touching' i defend clients.
i can't answer your question b/c there's no case. i don't know which police department investigated. i don't know which if any professional interviewed the complainant. i don't know who else has talked to the complainant. and about what. i don't know anything about my client. i don't know anything about anything. so there's no defense.
46. "wtf?" In response to Reply # 44 Tue Feb-14-17 04:26 PM by SoWhat
dude...
i'm not going to defend the act of molesting a child.
i will explain to a fact finder how my client ended up charged. i will explain what about my client or the state's case means he's innocent of the charge and should be found not guilty. no where in the defense would i say it's okay to 'molest' a child.
let's cut right to it:
standard defense templates are: my client didn't do it; my client did it but it was justified; my client did it but s/he is insane; my client did it but so what?; the prosecution can't prove it.
48. "im still confused but okay" In response to Reply # 46
>i'm not going to defend the act of molesting a child. > >i will explain to a fact finder how my client ended up >charged. i will explain what about my client or the state's >case means he's innocent of the charge and should be found not >guilty.
how can you explain "innocent" or "should be found not guilty" in a case where the defendant is guilty? rhetorical question
>let's cut right to it: >standard defense templates are: my client didn't do it; my >client did it but it was justified; my client did it but s/he >is insane; my client did it but so what?; the prosecution >can't prove it.
I would hope no one ever goes with "so what, they cant prove it" in my hypothetical instance
50. "RE: im still confused but okay" In response to Reply # 48
>how can you explain "innocent" or "should be found not guilty" >in a case where the defendant is guilty? rhetorical question
i'm going to use the facts of the case to explain why my client is innocent of the charge.
but what if they did it?
so what? if i can put together a story from the facts of the case that allow me to present a credible story of my client's innocence then i'm going to do that.
>I would hope no one ever goes with "so what, they cant prove >it" in my hypothetical instance
those are 2 different defenses. 'my client did it but so what?' is basically jury nullification which i'm not really allowed to argue. however, if i were defending a Black client who had violated a state law keeping them from using a public facility that has been reserved for white ppl...do you see it now, dude?
i also forgot a few - necessity is a big one. 'my client did it but s/he had no choice'. like the client who drove on a suspended license b/c his wife was in labor and she couldn't drive any more. what was he supposed to do? she had a difficult pregnancy - she didn't want him to deliver the baby on the roadside. in their rush to leave the house they had forgot their phones. he had to drive. he's guilty of driving on a suspended license. but he had to do it.
are you gonna be okay? can you release those pearls a little?
and of course i love 'the state can't prove it'. so does OJ Simpson. b/c the state didn't prove it.
59. "let's stick to sexual offenders" In response to Reply # 50
>i'm going to use the facts of the case to explain why my >client is innocent of the charge. > >but what if they did it? > >so what? if i can put together a story from the facts of the >case that allow me to present a credible story of my client's >innocence then i'm going to do that.
this is what people find reprehensible
>i also forgot a few - necessity is a big one. 'my client did >it but s/he had no choice'. like the client who drove on a >suspended license b/c his wife was in labor and she couldn't >drive any more. what was he supposed to do? she had a >difficult pregnancy - she didn't want him to deliver the baby >on the roadside. in their rush to leave the house they had >forgot their phones. he had to drive. he's guilty of driving >on a suspended license. but he had to do it.
>are you gonna be okay? can you release those pearls a >little?
no one has asked for a rundown/defense of your profession. this post is about one particular type of client
51. "why are ya''ll making this so complicated lol?" In response to Reply # 48
-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.
32. "Is sex offense worse than murder?" In response to Reply # 0
That's the vibe I'm getting in the post. And it seems like a pretty common belief. A sex offense is the worst type of crime and is almost indefensible.
>That's the vibe I'm getting in the post. And it seems like a >pretty common belief. A sex offense is the worst type of crime >and is almost indefensible. > >Why is that? > >
I'd add abuse of authority and violation of trust in there too. Usually the victim is someone under the charge of the abuser. That makes it worse, at least to most folks.
A robber doesn't owe you shit. So it's just a cat who needed money and you were an easy target. but a Pedo? Naw man. People trusted that person around their kids.
34. "I don't believe there is every a reason to abuse children" In response to Reply # 32
so in that respect, child molestation/sex offenses are always worst than murder (even if that is the murder of a child).
For the most part, I think murder is an excusable crime. There are many reasons why ppl will kill someone else. (although that doesn't mean all the reasons are valid, but i can understand murder more) But, to me, there is no reason a person should commit a sex crime against someone else especially against children.
37. "it can be...murder and the person is done. Their family has to deal" In response to Reply # 32
with that grief.
Sexual assault can torment a person forever. that person is still alive and dealing with the ramifications as is their family.
Maybe they recover, maybe they dont.
-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.
54. "right, i've felt upset enough to hurt someone that could have resulted" In response to Reply # 47
in their death. I obviously never did it tho.
I've never been moved in any capacity to 'want' to sexually assault someone. Sure, in my year i may have gotten to handsy to quick or something to that degree, but never continued beyond a no. (or anything to a child obviously)
-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.
35. "depends but if they did and i know they did it..." In response to Reply # 0
i would be more inclined that they get the proper sentence for the crime and that they would have to get help they need.
if it's a minor sex crime (like peeing outside), then I would work harder to get it changed to a misdemeanor and not having to register on the sex offender list.
61. "it shouldn't be but in some jurisdictions it is." In response to Reply # 58
i've never seen it charged as felony...but i wouldn't be surprised if it can be a felony based on prior convictions.
my lawyer friend had a client who'd peed outside in his yard and the prosecution offered to reduce the charge to disorderly conduct and wanted him to register as a sex offender and get treatment. the client said 'hell no' and demanded trial. he was acquitted.
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
(8 votes)
(4 votes)
(3 votes)
