Justice System: Criminal Attorneys - Political Forum

Locke9-05 · 06-28-2007, 08:21 PM

This topic pertains specifically to the use of criminal attorneys in court cases. What are your thoughts? Is there need for them? Or are criminal lawyers just an unnecessary variable that can sway the decision for good or bad?

Personally I feel there is no need for criminal attorneys. The justice system is structured in such a way that the evidence should be more than enough to convict or condemn a man or woman brought up on criminal charges. If an innocent man is accused of a crime, he simply tells the truth. The evidence in most cases will support him. If a guilty man is accused, in most cases, he's going to lie. Why then should we compromise the justice system's integrity by providing the guilty party with the right to a professional who can lie very convincingly? It doesn't make sense.

As it stands right now, a guilty murderer charged with his crime--who is well to do financially--can hire an expert attorney who will then lie to the judge and jury and in all probability dramatically decrease or maybe even eliminate the chances of a rightful conviction. On the other hand, an innocent man brought up on the same charges--who is struggling with money--cannot afford such an expert attorney and will end up spending life in prison or put to death. This is not how things should be.

Izzibeth · 06-28-2007, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

This topic pertains specifically to the use of criminal defense attorneys in court cases. What are your thoughts? Is there need for them? Or are criminal defense lawyers just an unnecessary variable that can sway the decision for good or bad?

Personally I feel there is no need for criminal defense attorneys. The justice system is structured in such a way that the evidence should be more than enough to convict or condemn a man or woman brought up on criminal charges. If an innocent man is accused of a crime, he simply tells the truth. The evidence in most cases will support him. If a guilty man is accused, in most cases, he's going to lie. Why then should we compromise the justice system's integrity by providing the guilty party with the right to a professional who can lie very convincingly? It doesn't make sense.

As it stands right now, a guilty murderer charged with his crime--who is well to do financially--can hire an expert attorney who will then lie to the judge and jury and in all probability dramatically decrease or maybe even eliminate the chances of a rightful conviction. On the other hand, an innocent man brought up on the same charges--who is struggling with money--cannot afford such an expert attorney and will end up spending life in prison or put to death. This is not how things should be.

Unfortunately, things are not as easy as your paragraph states and life simply doesn't work that way. A perfect example is the case of the West Memphis Three.

Defense attorneys are needed because a prosecutor wants to win just as badly as a defense attorney does. They pull out all of the tricks of the trade to do so sometimes even if the evidence points away from the suspect.

Locke9-05 · 06-28-2007, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Izzibeth

Unfortunately, things are not as easy as your paragraph states and life simply doesn't work that way. A perfect example is the case of the West Memphis Three.

Defense attorneys are needed because a prosecutor wants to win just as badly as a defense attorney does. They pull out all of the tricks of the trade to do so sometimes even if the evidence points away from the suspect.

Yes, I'm sorry, I meant criminal attorneys period. I do apologize for not including that, I'm going to edit that right now.

People should be able to represent themselves. Like I said, an innocent party simply needs to tell the truth. I read the court case in the link you provided, but it's not very relevant toward the point I was trying to make. The boy who gave the confession was not allowed legal counsel, which is wrong. Legal counsel is necessary, I do recognize that. The case of the West Memphis 3 is more of an example of the wrongdoing of law enforcement--interrogation without counsel or parental consent, as well as abbreviated and inconclusive audio taping of the questioning--than the justice system itself (although based on the text in the link you provided, the process by which they were convicted was wrong in numerous ways as well).

Scribbler1 · 06-28-2007, 08:59 PM

It has all to often come out that prosecutors are less concerned about the actual guilt of a defendant as they are about winning their cases. For job security, advancement or political ambitions, unchecked prosecution should NEVER be allowed, or even considered.

No examples should be necessary but the phony Duke La Crosse team rape prosecution should make my point.