That didn’t go very deep. Obviously our constitution says everyone has the right to a defense, but why was that included in the constitution, for what purpose? Why is it significant? Also, I think it is more of a philosophical question than one about mere interpretation of law. The answer to the question, “why would you defend someone who you know is guilty” should not come from law, but from personal morality. You pretty much avoided the heart of the question there by deferring to what existing law is. Saying, “everyone has the right to an attorney” does not even come close to answering the question of, “why would you defend someone who is most likely guilty”, which, I would suggest, has philosophical and moral roots to it. I would like to see an actual answer uploaded in a follow up video.
I was thinking exactly the same. He's basically justifying it by saying, "Because the constitution told me to do it!" He doesn't go more into depth on why it is actually wrong or right in his opinion.
@@emanandchill This is about a defense attorney defending his client. Most likely he would have more insight than the jury would bc he/she is the actual counsel for the defendant, so presumably the client could give him/her more information so they could better defend them in court.
@@dalewilliams7801 No in fact, often the attorney does not (and can not) know whether the defense his client is telling him is true. It's not his place to judge. If a defense attorney wouldn't defend every client to the best of his abilities, then he would act as the de-facto jury declaring his client guilty. This would completely destroy the legal system.
That's what I was thinking. Sometimes people are obviously without a doubt guilty of something. Like when they're caught on camera doing the crime or if they told the lawyer they're guilty in private. They still have to have a defense lawyer and he didn't answer the question at all.
Excellent answer. I'd also add that it actually bothers criminal defense lawyers more to defend the innocent than the guilty. If they have a client they truly believe is innocent and getting railroaded, they tend to get emotionally involved and put a ton of pressure on themselves to win the case, because they don't want a miscarriage of justice. In open and shut cases where the client's guilty as sin, they don't have that psychological burden.
@@jadeandjesse5908 If the prosecution has an airtight case and didn't violate the defendant's constitutional rights, there really isn't much the defense team can do. In those cases defense attorneys just focus on damage control, like negotiating plea deals. (In fact, the large majority of criminal cases in the U.S.--literally more than 95 percent--never go to trial. They're resolved with plea deals before they ever get that far.)
@@mam162 haha, you are still avoiding the issue. Answer the question of what happens with the 5% that do actually go to trial. And furthermore, you lead with, “well if the prosecution has a airtight case…”, what happens if the prosectution lawyers suck, even when their evidence is good, and when you may have further information and a private lawyer, which further incrimminates the defendant in your view of the case, but which you can not make public. Then what do you do? It is most highly likely that at some point in our country’s history, there has been at least one case where the defendant is guilty, but the outcome of the trial is that he comes out scot-free. As a matter of fact, Sammy the Bull has testified to congress about this sort of thing, where John Gotti was definitely guilty, and the lawyers knew it and he knew it, and they git him out of court without any punishment. The question is more asking, “how did those lawyers justify defending John Gotti in that circumstance?”, why did they and why would they defend him when they know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is guilty? Looking for a real answer to that specific question.
@@mam162 that isn't what i asked. This is about, how does the lawyer feel about doing things like this? For example: defending a drunken driver who killed 4 others in a road accident. Sure, it was technically an accident, but you, as a lawyer, will take it upon yourself to fight the prosecution, and in turn, fight against the families and friends of the people killed, who have done nothing wrong, while your client has. And yes, most people will make deals or take pleas to avoid court costs because it's a nightmare, that people who are in the right often aren't willing to fight because the precedents set are set against them. The law can be morally wrong. Thinking the written law is infallible, and that "I'm just doing my job", is likely the source of the VERY COMMON joke that lawyers are not people, have no emotions, and don't have souls. The people you work with are real, but none of their pain and suffering is real to many lawyers. They eat up tragedy and dysfunction and shit it out in a courtroom for a paycheck. The Lawyers are one of like three professions to have such a horrible stigma around it. Paparazzi, politicians, and lawyers. There's a reason the public at large finds these professions disgusting and the people in them as disgusting.
@@jadeandjesse5908 "How does the lawyer feel about doing things like this?" It depends on the lawyer, but nearly all criminal defense lawyers really do get into the field out of an idealistic sense that everyone deserves a fair trial and the government should be forced to prove its claims. Idealism is pretty much the ONLY reason to be a public defender, because those guys are insanely underfunded and they could make far more money in private practice. (To put it into perspective, I've read that in the state of Florida, public defenders receive pay low enough to qualify for public defenders themselves if they get in trouble!) If you really want to make big bucks as a lawyer, the way to do it is to work in corporate law where your clients are large firms, not random schmucks accused of crimes. That's why someone would be motivated to work as a defense attorney in the first place, but I know what you're ultimately asking is "isn't it hard to defend obviously bad people who hurt others? Don't you feel for the victims?" You're absolutely right--a lot of defendants really ARE bad people and have done bad things to hurt others. Depending on the defendant's level of remorse or lack thereof, it really can make it tough on the attorney from an emotional standpoint. No defense lawyer ENJOYS defending, for example, child pornographers. In those scenarios, what they usually do is rely on their faith in the system and their role in it. Ultimately, the reason we have defense attorneys in the first place, and why they're guaranteed by the Constitution, is as a check on the state. Even scumbags and lowlifes have constitutional rights, and the defense attorneys are there to make sure those rights are protected. To quote Sir Thomas More: "I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake". If those checks on the state don't work for the worst of the worst, they don't work period and no one is safe.
Defense of the accused should have nothing to do with what the attorney believes regarding the accused's guilt or innocence. The job of the defense is to make the prosecution prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That protects all of us from tyranny.
you're confusing legality with morality. The idea isn't to tell you to refuse to defend people who are guilty, but more speaking to it's apprehensiveness morally. Yes, the law allows it, but that doesn't mean that it's always morally okay in the average person's eyes viewed through a clear lens. Although don't get me wrong, i don't think these prison systems are anywhere near an equal punishment to the crime of most of these people, so i believe at the end of the day it does more good than harm in my opinion, but nonetheless, as many people are saying in this comment section, you miss the point.
@@cr1t1cs92 eh like I said, the justice and prison systems are pretty unfair in my opinion, so I feel overall it may be a good thing, even if it does plenty of bad
@@Bruhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. its not quite right for its use to provide justice to the criminal, its also quite wrong in other way. But its the best one we can use to provide justice for now ?
@@30pranaypawar17 well no, the idea isn’t to punish criminals, it’s to lower crime. We say that prison is a punishment and it deters people from wanted to do crimes, yet we’ve seen that that doesn’t at all work. America has the highest incarceration rate in the world and yet is one of the highest crime rate countries still. Punishment doesn’t work, we need rehabilitation, not making people “pay for their sins”
@@Bruhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. oh ok i get it. The best way to handle a criminal is through rehabilitation and not penalising them for their mis-conduct.
It's not up to the defendant's counsel to assess his "guilt". The COURT does that, IAW due process. The defendant's counsel is there to ensure that due process is scrupulously observed, so that their client get as favorable an outcome to the matter as his advocacy can render. No attorney should feel any hesitancy to represent clients they "know" are probably guilty to some degree of what they're accused of; if they do, then they ought to recuse themselves and have their client represented by another attorney.
I’ve watched a few of these videos now and nobody seems to really answer the question in a non perfect political way. The question people are asking judges is how can you sleep at night knowing you’re keeping a liar and scumbag out of prison. The answer for many is the ridiculous amount of cash people are willing to pay you to let someone else take the hit instead of them. Nobody has an issue letting due process and a fair trial take place. The fact is with a good lawyer you can get away with a whole lot and let someone else rot in your place
You do not know truly who is guilty. The trial is there to sus that information out. I know that you think that you have the world figured out, but my recommendation to you is to leave it to the professionals. You would crumble as any kind of attorney with your attitudes.
@@isaiahdaniels5643 No doubt. You’re just too brilliant mate! Especially how your point totally wasn’t related to my initial post, which is specifically targeting lawyers who are indeed corrupt, i.e. lawyers who solely represent criminals, high level corporate seniors and politicians. That is what I feel people really are asking about when they ask lawyers “how can you represent someone you know is guilty”. Also you don’t know a thing about me or my view on the world, which is ironic, as you are calling me out for arrogance…
Some cases are harder to try than others. A seasoned attorney will advise his client if his outlook's not good, and advise to accept a plea bargain if offered, especially if the risk of rejection is high.
The second we find out the person is guilty, there needs to be an exceleration towards sentencing. No more delays....no trying to get them off the hook.
It is the DEFENSE attorney to get the defendant from getting convicted PERIOD ! do not say this crap about the constitution , I have seen lawyers get up in front of a seated jury and try his best to convince the jury . that the FACE in the video of the drug deal . where his client was seen making a drug transaction with a undercover narcotics agent WITH AUDIO , where his client is called by NAME. That lawyer smiled at the jury and said that was not his client, Other than public defenders who would have not taken a case like that to trial BUT A PAID lawyer will make false claims and lie , They are in it for the money the more wins the more clients he or she will get , so stop with the morality crap nobody buys it . 30 yrs in law enforcement ( retired ) last 18 as Detective . I saw it too many times.
Bullshit. Don't act like your only representing a person because they are "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" because even AFTER a person is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by 12 of their peers (the jury)... You STILL file appeals and try to get them a new trial or try to have the sentence overturned, or pick apart every single thing to say your client wasnt "given a fair trial". So, if you were to represent a person UNTIL they are proven guilty, that makes sense. But the fact that even AFTER they are found guilty, you STILL try everything in your power to undo that guilty verdict is where you fail. At that point, you know you are representing a guilty person and you still try to make it so these monsters, and these dangers to society get to walk free! So, please... spare us the bullshit and just be honest.... just say the real reason why you choose to represent the worst of society... because you make big money doing so... and because their crimes had no impact on your personal life or the lives of your family! Oh and I know you may think "well, I don't think the jury made the right decision, and that's why I continue to work for my client". But, that argument isn't a good one either. If your saying everyone deserves a defense and that's just how the justice system works... then you also have to accept that when you're client is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... thats also just how the justice system works. After that point, it doesn't matter what you think or of you agree that the jury's verdict was the right one. That person is guilty, they are sentenced and that's that.
I absolutely agree, it's one thing to defend someone who you're not sure if they're guilty or not but once they've been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then the defense lawyers should stop defending them. I know I couldn't defend someone who committed horrible crimes, this is especially true if they have no remorse after killing or raping someone since I just morally couldn't do it and would withdraw from the case. The only time I could defend someone who was clearly guilty is if it was something they did by complete accident and the prosecution wants to put down a much harsher sentence than necessary, like if someone lost control while driving and killed another person and the prosecution wants to nail the defendant with a life without parole sentence. In that case, I would seek a lesser sentence since that is too harsh but anything serious that was done with malicious intent doesn't deserve to be defended and I'd gladly take the heat from a supervisor and be questioned why I withdrew from a case than defend someone who is a known monster.
Very good point! I think if I was Chris Watt's attorney, and he's found guilty....he's gonna want to Appeal. I could make the moral decision not to do that for him. There will be 1,000 others who are more than happy to - because capitalism. They do it for the money. They have lost touch with morality long-ago because that's the culture in that field. It's normalized, I imagine.
Defending a criminal should be a crime. We need more Righteous people occupying Law enforcement jobs as well as weeding out those that don't have a good moral compass. We need more cameras on the streets. Only the wicked complain about increase in cameras or when their "freedom" threatened.
@@guillermorobledo2842 But do we know if someone is innocent or guilty? We don't always. And even if so, we don't know all the facts of the case. I want criminals to be in jail, but we won't know the facts of the case, and against a prosecution that spends their whole life in law it doesn't matter what defendant you are you will get dominated in a trial. | If someone is guilty, then the prosecution will have enough evidence and convict them. You'd rather have a guilty person walk free than an innocent person go to jail.
@@KovalchukSnipe I agree with having actual evidence, the more the better. Sadly nowadays criminals have more ways to stay out of jail. There should be more cameras out in the streets. I'd prefer the guilty to be where they belong.
@@guillermorobledo2842 A large amount of crimes in certain areas come from too leniency from the justice system, many crimes are committed by people who are out on bond/probation/or are reoffenders. America has been at the forefront of criticism from over-policing, how handle our offenders has been shit.
That didn’t go very deep. Obviously our constitution says everyone has the right to a defense, but why was that included in the constitution, for what purpose? Why is it significant? Also, I think it is more of a philosophical question than one about mere interpretation of law. The answer to the question, “why would you defend someone who you know is guilty” should not come from law, but from personal morality. You pretty much avoided the heart of the question there by deferring to what existing law is. Saying, “everyone has the right to an attorney” does not even come close to answering the question of, “why would you defend someone who is most likely guilty”, which, I would suggest, has philosophical and moral roots to it. I would like to see an actual answer uploaded in a follow up video.
I was thinking exactly the same. He's basically justifying it by saying, "Because the constitution told me to do it!"
He doesn't go more into depth on why it is actually wrong or right in his opinion.
But how do you know they guilty? Innocent until proven guilty.
@@emanandchill This is about a defense attorney defending his client. Most likely he would have more insight than the jury would bc he/she is the actual counsel for the defendant, so presumably the client could give him/her more information so they could better defend them in court.
@@dalewilliams7801
No in fact, often the attorney does not (and can not) know whether the defense his client is telling him is true.
It's not his place to judge.
If a defense attorney wouldn't defend every client to the best of his abilities, then he would act as the de-facto jury declaring his client guilty.
This would completely destroy the legal system.
That's what I was thinking. Sometimes people are obviously without a doubt guilty of something. Like when they're caught on camera doing the crime or if they told the lawyer they're guilty in private. They still have to have a defense lawyer and he didn't answer the question at all.
Excellent answer. I'd also add that it actually bothers criminal defense lawyers more to defend the innocent than the guilty. If they have a client they truly believe is innocent and getting railroaded, they tend to get emotionally involved and put a ton of pressure on themselves to win the case, because they don't want a miscarriage of justice. In open and shut cases where the client's guilty as sin, they don't have that psychological burden.
So doing your best to help bad people get off as easy as they can doesn't weigh you down?
@@jadeandjesse5908 If the prosecution has an airtight case and didn't violate the defendant's constitutional rights, there really isn't much the defense team can do. In those cases defense attorneys just focus on damage control, like negotiating plea deals. (In fact, the large majority of criminal cases in the U.S.--literally more than 95 percent--never go to trial. They're resolved with plea deals before they ever get that far.)
@@mam162 haha, you are still avoiding the issue. Answer the question of what happens with the 5% that do actually go to trial. And furthermore, you lead with, “well if the prosecution has a airtight case…”, what happens if the prosectution lawyers suck, even when their evidence is good, and when you may have further information and a private lawyer, which further incrimminates the defendant in your view of the case, but which you can not make public. Then what do you do? It is most highly likely that at some point in our country’s history, there has been at least one case where the defendant is guilty, but the outcome of the trial is that he comes out scot-free. As a matter of fact, Sammy the Bull has testified to congress about this sort of thing, where John Gotti was definitely guilty, and the lawyers knew it and he knew it, and they git him out of court without any punishment. The question is more asking, “how did those lawyers justify defending John Gotti in that circumstance?”, why did they and why would they defend him when they know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is guilty? Looking for a real answer to that specific question.
@@mam162 that isn't what i asked. This is about, how does the lawyer feel about doing things like this? For example: defending a drunken driver who killed 4 others in a road accident. Sure, it was technically an accident, but you, as a lawyer, will take it upon yourself to fight the prosecution, and in turn, fight against the families and friends of the people killed, who have done nothing wrong, while your client has. And yes, most people will make deals or take pleas to avoid court costs because it's a nightmare, that people who are in the right often aren't willing to fight because the precedents set are set against them. The law can be morally wrong.
Thinking the written law is infallible, and that "I'm just doing my job", is likely the source of the VERY COMMON joke that lawyers are not people, have no emotions, and don't have souls. The people you work with are real, but none of their pain and suffering is real to many lawyers. They eat up tragedy and dysfunction and shit it out in a courtroom for a paycheck. The Lawyers are one of like three professions to have such a horrible stigma around it. Paparazzi, politicians, and lawyers. There's a reason the public at large finds these professions disgusting and the people in them as disgusting.
@@jadeandjesse5908 "How does the lawyer feel about doing things like this?" It depends on the lawyer, but nearly all criminal defense lawyers really do get into the field out of an idealistic sense that everyone deserves a fair trial and the government should be forced to prove its claims. Idealism is pretty much the ONLY reason to be a public defender, because those guys are insanely underfunded and they could make far more money in private practice. (To put it into perspective, I've read that in the state of Florida, public defenders receive pay low enough to qualify for public defenders themselves if they get in trouble!) If you really want to make big bucks as a lawyer, the way to do it is to work in corporate law where your clients are large firms, not random schmucks accused of crimes.
That's why someone would be motivated to work as a defense attorney in the first place, but I know what you're ultimately asking is "isn't it hard to defend obviously bad people who hurt others? Don't you feel for the victims?" You're absolutely right--a lot of defendants really ARE bad people and have done bad things to hurt others. Depending on the defendant's level of remorse or lack thereof, it really can make it tough on the attorney from an emotional standpoint. No defense lawyer ENJOYS defending, for example, child pornographers. In those scenarios, what they usually do is rely on their faith in the system and their role in it. Ultimately, the reason we have defense attorneys in the first place, and why they're guaranteed by the Constitution, is as a check on the state. Even scumbags and lowlifes have constitutional rights, and the defense attorneys are there to make sure those rights are protected. To quote Sir Thomas More: "I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake". If those checks on the state don't work for the worst of the worst, they don't work period and no one is safe.
Defense of the accused should have nothing to do with what the attorney believes regarding the accused's guilt or innocence. The job of the defense is to make the prosecution prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That protects all of us from tyranny.
Correct.
you're confusing legality with morality. The idea isn't to tell you to refuse to defend people who are guilty, but more speaking to it's apprehensiveness morally. Yes, the law allows it, but that doesn't mean that it's always morally okay in the average person's eyes viewed through a clear lens. Although don't get me wrong, i don't think these prison systems are anywhere near an equal punishment to the crime of most of these people, so i believe at the end of the day it does more good than harm in my opinion, but nonetheless, as many people are saying in this comment section, you miss the point.
All lawyers are going to hell already.
@@cr1t1cs92 eh like I said, the justice and prison systems are pretty unfair in my opinion, so I feel overall it may be a good thing, even if it does plenty of bad
@@Bruhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. its not quite right for its use to provide justice to the criminal, its also quite wrong in other way. But its the best one we can use to provide justice for now ?
@@30pranaypawar17 well no, the idea isn’t to punish criminals, it’s to lower crime. We say that prison is a punishment and it deters people from wanted to do crimes, yet we’ve seen that that doesn’t at all work. America has the highest incarceration rate in the world and yet is one of the highest crime rate countries still. Punishment doesn’t work, we need rehabilitation, not making people “pay for their sins”
@@Bruhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. oh ok i get it. The best way to handle a criminal is through rehabilitation and not penalising them for their mis-conduct.
Great clarification! Thank you. I have heard people ask this question many times but have never heard a lawyer actually answer. Appreciate that!
It's not up to the defendant's counsel to assess his "guilt". The COURT does that, IAW due process. The defendant's counsel is there to ensure that due process is scrupulously observed, so that their client get as favorable an outcome to the matter as his advocacy can render. No attorney should feel any hesitancy to represent clients they "know" are probably guilty to some degree of what they're accused of; if they do, then they ought to recuse themselves and have their client represented by another attorney.
I’ve watched a few of these videos now and nobody seems to really answer the question in a non perfect political way.
The question people are asking judges is how can you sleep at night knowing you’re keeping a liar and scumbag out of prison. The answer for many is the ridiculous amount of cash people are willing to pay you to let someone else take the hit instead of them. Nobody has an issue letting due process and a fair trial take place.
The fact is with a good lawyer you can get away with a whole lot and let someone else rot in your place
You do not know truly who is guilty. The trial is there to sus that information out. I know that you think that you have the world figured out, but my recommendation to you is to leave it to the professionals. You would crumble as any kind of attorney with your attitudes.
@@isaiahdaniels5643 yeah you’re right there has never been a corrupt lawyer before 😂
@@muhsinbustillo See, you've already failed at cross examination of what my point is. Very basic stuff which you cannot manage.
@@isaiahdaniels5643 No doubt. You’re just too brilliant mate! Especially how your point totally wasn’t related to my initial post, which is specifically targeting lawyers who are indeed corrupt, i.e. lawyers who solely represent criminals, high level corporate seniors and politicians.
That is what I feel people really are asking about when they ask lawyers “how can you represent someone you know is guilty”.
Also you don’t know a thing about me or my view on the world, which is ironic, as you are calling me out for arrogance…
I agree @Ollitsub
Oj’s lawyer watched this video
I'm moreso concerned with how bad a totally guilty client screws over your defense.
Some cases are harder to try than others. A seasoned attorney will advise his client if his outlook's not good, and advise to accept a plea bargain if offered, especially if the risk of rejection is high.
how can a criminal defense attorney NOT totally believe the innocence of their client ?
When their client says they did it and need a good lawyer to get them off the hook.
Innocent until proven guilty.
guilty until proven innocent
@@buen0_ Lol, I hope you’re trolling
@@takeda8148 In this day and age, he’s not
thats reality..the lawyer needs to defend the client whether guilty or not.
I need a criminal OFFENSE attorney, know one ?
This is enough to make people quit their jobs and there is more than just criminal defense lawyers right!?
The second we find out the person is guilty, there needs to be an exceleration towards sentencing. No more delays....no trying to get them off the hook.
Let’s be real the money!!!
Lawyers don’t have any moral compass. Simply because they can’t have one.
With that being said, I deeply despise those people.
not the money then
It is the DEFENSE attorney to get the defendant from getting convicted PERIOD ! do not say this crap about the constitution , I have seen lawyers get up in front of a seated jury and try his best to convince the jury . that the FACE in the video of the drug deal . where his client was seen making a drug transaction with a undercover narcotics agent WITH AUDIO , where his client is called by NAME. That lawyer smiled at the jury and said that was not his client, Other than public defenders who would have not taken a case like that to trial BUT A PAID lawyer will make false claims and lie , They are in it for the money the more wins the more clients he or she will get , so stop with the morality crap nobody buys it . 30 yrs in law enforcement ( retired ) last 18 as Detective . I saw it too many times.
Bullshit.
Don't act like your only representing a person because they are "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" because even AFTER a person is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by 12 of their peers (the jury)... You STILL file appeals and try to get them a new trial or try to have the sentence overturned, or pick apart every single thing to say your client wasnt "given a fair trial".
So, if you were to represent a person UNTIL they are proven guilty, that makes sense. But the fact that even AFTER they are found guilty, you STILL try everything in your power to undo that guilty verdict is where you fail. At that point, you know you are representing a guilty person and you still try to make it so these monsters, and these dangers to society get to walk free!
So, please... spare us the bullshit and just be honest.... just say the real reason why you choose to represent the worst of society... because you make big money doing so... and because their crimes had no impact on your personal life or the lives of your family!
Oh and I know you may think "well, I don't think the jury made the right decision, and that's why I continue to work for my client". But, that argument isn't a good one either. If your saying everyone deserves a defense and that's just how the justice system works... then you also have to accept that when you're client is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... thats also just how the justice system works. After that point, it doesn't matter what you think or of you agree that the jury's verdict was the right one. That person is guilty, they are sentenced and that's that.
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Demons in human clothing should not be left off the hook.
The world would be a better place with less of them around.
I absolutely agree, it's one thing to defend someone who you're not sure if they're guilty or not but once they've been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then the defense lawyers should stop defending them. I know I couldn't defend someone who committed horrible crimes, this is especially true if they have no remorse after killing or raping someone since I just morally couldn't do it and would withdraw from the case. The only time I could defend someone who was clearly guilty is if it was something they did by complete accident and the prosecution wants to put down a much harsher sentence than necessary, like if someone lost control while driving and killed another person and the prosecution wants to nail the defendant with a life without parole sentence. In that case, I would seek a lesser sentence since that is too harsh but anything serious that was done with malicious intent doesn't deserve to be defended and I'd gladly take the heat from a supervisor and be questioned why I withdrew from a case than defend someone who is a known monster.
Very good point! I think if I was Chris Watt's attorney, and he's found guilty....he's gonna want to Appeal. I could make the moral decision not to do that for him. There will be 1,000 others who are more than happy to - because capitalism. They do it for the money. They have lost touch with morality long-ago because that's the culture in that field. It's normalized, I imagine.
what if suspect tells zou that he did it? And you know that Offence is wright?
If the suspect tells you they did it you have to tell the court
@@uhohspaghettio635 oh thanks i did not know it.
Defending a criminal should be a crime.
We need more Righteous people occupying Law enforcement jobs as well as weeding out those that don't have a good moral compass.
We need more cameras on the streets.
Only the wicked complain about increase in cameras or when their "freedom" threatened.
Wow really? . You know what they mean when they ask you that question. Such a attorney answer...
Appreciate the answers but right now these lunatics are treating it as a suggested not the damn law of the land as it should be
Whatever morality you have, everyone deserves a defense.
Hell no!
Only the innocent deserve defense, criminals can die.
It would become a better place with less demons running amok in human clothing.
@@guillermorobledo2842 But do we know if someone is innocent or guilty? We don't always. And even if so, we don't know all the facts of the case.
I want criminals to be in jail, but we won't know the facts of the case, and against a prosecution that spends their whole life in law it doesn't matter what defendant you are you will get dominated in a trial.
|
If someone is guilty, then the prosecution will have enough evidence and convict them. You'd rather have a guilty person walk free than an innocent person go to jail.
@@KovalchukSnipe I agree with having actual evidence, the more the better.
Sadly nowadays criminals have more ways to stay out of jail.
There should be more cameras out in the streets.
I'd prefer the guilty to be where they belong.
@@guillermorobledo2842 A large amount of crimes in certain areas come from too leniency from the justice system, many crimes are committed by people who are out on bond/probation/or are reoffenders. America has been at the forefront of criticism from over-policing, how handle our offenders has been shit.
Corny