The occasional poetic justice...

[steingar]

I agree that the death penalty should ONLY be applied where there is absolutely 0 doubt - not even reasonable doubt - ABSOLUTELY none.

And in this case, the guy has just ensured that there was, indeed, ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT.

He has lost his right to his life.

The problem is that capitol punishment is never used unless there is 0 doubt, and even so innocents have been executed. There is never 0 doubt. As I explain to my students, the odds are almost never 100% on anything.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Bill his family for the cost, since its their fault they raised a monster.

You CANNOT be serious.

Can you?

 

[SkyHog]

You CANNOT be serious.

Can you?

Partially. It very much is the parents fault for raising their child in such a way that he was willing to commit crimes, but I also understand that once a child turns 18, they are responsible for their own crimes....

Now - under 18, tried as adult? Make the parents pay.

 

[ScottM]

God'll get it right in the end, right?

AAARRRR Most not make Catholic Priest joke!!!! ARRRRRRr

 

[SkyHog]

Nick:

Granted, I don't practice in the criminal defense realm, but I fully and completely endorse Mssrs. Taylor's and Zucker's comments above.

Think of it this way: you have two defendants, charged with two crimes of a similar character. One's guilty as hell, did it on purpose and enjoyed it; the other, well, he was at home in bed, no alibi, no proof, just a swearing match - but the evidence against him looks just terrible, just as bad as the first guy! Who decides when a defendant doesn't get a full and vigorous defense, one that will flush out the falsehoods?

I have heard people before say, in effect, that it would be OK to reduce the quality of defense some accused persons get, because they're accused of really bad crimes, odds are that most accused are guilty (and that's largely true), and if a few innocent people get convicted in the process - well, that's a small price to pay in exchange for the presumptive benefit of less crime.

Which works *great* unless you happen to be the innocent guy who's falsely accused of the morally outrageous crime.

For me, it comes down to this: when the system provides for the vigorous defense of accused persons, it provides a much greater assurance that those convicted, really are guilty! The system has to be credible, from the start, in order for the rule of law to prevail, for laws to be respected and to have the proper effect of deterring crime.

True dat. I think it was Lincoln that said something along the lines of:

I'd rather a million guilty men go free than see one innocent man in jail.

BUT....there are times when the defending attorney knows the person is guilty....attorney/client privilege gives them that ability...but the defending attorney still successfully defends the person.

That, and only that, is where I mean they deserve to get the massive amount of money they get to sell their soul. And again, selling one's soul gives enough money to buy the comforts necessary for a good night's sleep.

 

[ScottM]

Bill his family for the cost, since its their fault they raised a monster.

Partially. It very much is the parents fault for raising their child in such a way that he was willing to commit crimes, but I also understand that once a child turns 18, they are responsible for their own crimes....

Now - under 18, tried as adult? Make the parents pay.

FYI in the People's Republic of China when a person is executed, the family is billed for the bullet that the state used to shoot the guilty party.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

In reality Nick most folks accused of Murder are represented either by the Public Defenders office or in the case where I practice by private attorneys who are apponted by the court to work on a specific case for what equates to pennys on the dollar.

The rate in Colo. right now for "Alternate Defense Counsel," which is appointed when the PD can't represent the defendant, is $65/hr. With the attorneys involved, that's about a fifth of what they'd otherwise charge.

There are also limits on the funds the state will provide that vary depending on the charges involved. That is, you'll get $X for a murder, $Y for an assault, $a for a DUI, etc.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Robert Shapiro, Johnny Cochran and F. Lee Bailey made very, very successful lives before OJ Simpson came along...just sayin'. Not calling out all lawyers at all, but truthfully, to defend some of the scum out there, the lawyers should be, and are, paid very handsomely for their soul in return.

No doubt, but those three - and many others - were the right people (intelligent), in the right place, at the right time.

Your average criminal defendant isn't OJ Simpson, isn't that guy locked up in Switzerland right now, isn't the ENRON dude. Your average criminal defendant will give you a $10,000 retainer for a first degree murder case (which is put on a credit card), and which, if you do your job appropriately, you'll burn through in a matter of months, if not weeks. At that point, the client probably won't be able to pay you - meaning you either keep representing him out of the goodness of your heart, or you kick him to the curb.

Your average criminal defense lawyer isn't pulling in a million dollars per year. There are certainly ones that do (and, ironically, they're often not that good in court, but are good at things like manipulating the press and other tactics that I consider to be low).

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Nick:

Granted, I don't practice in the criminal defense realm, but I fully and completely endorse Mssrs. Taylor's and Zucker's comments above.

Think of it this way: you have two defendants, charged with two crimes of a similar character. One's guilty as hell, did it on purpose and enjoyed it; the other, well, he was at home in bed, no alibi, no proof, just a swearing match - but the evidence against him looks just terrible, just as bad as the first guy! Who decides when a defendant doesn't get a full and vigorous defense, one that will flush out the falsehoods?

I have heard people before say, in effect, that it would be OK to reduce the quality of defense some accused persons get, because they're accused of really bad crimes, odds are that most accused are guilty (and that's largely true), and if a few innocent people get convicted in the process - well, that's a small price to pay in exchange for the presumptive benefit of less crime.

Which works *great* unless you happen to be the innocent guy who's falsely accused of the morally outrageous crime.

For me, it comes down to this: when the system provides for the vigorous defense of accused persons, it provides a much greater assurance that those convicted, really are guilty! The system has to be credible, from the start, in order for the rule of law to prevail, for laws to be respected and to have the proper effect of deterring crime.

I think that's as good a way to put it as any.

To perhaps paraphrase, the important thing in our justice system isn't the result. Rather, it's how the result is reached.

To put it even differently, the means have to justify the ends.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...

I can understand. Most of what I do has an impact on lives in some way, shape, or form. A bad engineering decision can result in death. Failure to complete an animal rescue mission almost certainly will result in death (especially if I make a bad go decision).

When I see posts like this, and when I'm dealing with cases like one we've just wrapped up, I'm reminded that the judicial system is "remedial only."

What I mean is that our form of "justice" arises only after the event has happened and is over. In contract cases, that's fine - money gets repaid, a house gets built, whatever; the end result is that everyone walks away having performed their contractual obligations.

But, in just about everything else, there's no fixing the problem. We don't bring murder victims back to life, we don't reattach lost limbs, we don't restore dignity, and we don't give peace of mind. In that sense, there is no "justice" - no amount of jail time, no amount of money, no amount of capital punishment, can right the wrongs that were done.

I don't have time now, but this brings up my "social garbagemen" theory of making a career out of lawyers. And, I'll admit - thoughts along those lines give me serious qualms about whether I'll be staying in the law.

 

[steingar]

The other thing to throw into the discussion is if I really murdered someone and the cops caught up to me, I'd be looking to cut a deal and save my hide, unless I really thought I could beat the rap. If I'm innocent I'm far less likely to confess to a crime I didn't commit no matter what the sentence. Such reluctance is likely to be read by judges and juries as a lack of remorse, making me more likely to draw the death penalty.

Of course, we shouldn't mention the fact that a black man convicted of killing a white woman is far more likely to draw the death penalty than a white man convicted of killing the same woman.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...

BUT....there are times when the defending attorney knows the person is guilty....attorney/client privilege gives them that ability...but the defending attorney still successfully defends the person.

....

Nick,

I understand exactly what you're saying. I truly do.

But, here's how I look at it - the only way that guilty people walk is if the state can't prove its case. If it can't do that, I have no problem with the person walking, because that preserves our Constitution.

Look at OJ, for instance. Most of us agree that he was guilty. BUT, he didn't walk because of his defense attorneys. He walked because the prosecutors were absolutely horrible. I mean bad. Bad to the point that they didn't prove their case. The defense attorneys, through what I consider to have been exceptionally competent work, held the state to that burden - and the state didn't meet it. I mean, some of the evidence presented actually indicated that OJ didn't do it.

Ask yourself this: do you want someone sitting in prison or executed when the State hasn't proven its case?

 

[steingar]

I don't have time now, but this brings up my "social garbagemen" theory of making a career out of lawyers. And, I'll admit - thoughts along those lines give me serious qualms about whether I'll be staying in the law.

Your metaphor about lawyers as garbage-men is deeply flawed. The legal system is the lubrication that allows our society to function. With the number of people living in the small area of modern societies, conflict is inevitable. If allowed to progress unchecked such conflicts lead to violence and destructive behavior. However, the legal system allows parties to seek redress in a nonviolent fashion, with application of violence left to legal professionals who are supposed to be neutral. Leaving the practice of law for such philosophical concerns is foolish at best. Leaving because you don't like being a lawyer does make sense though.

 

[Greebo]

The problem is that capitol punishment is never used unless there is 0 doubt, and even so innocents have been executed. There is never 0 doubt. As I explain to my students, the odds are almost never 100% on anything.

Ok, fair point - but in this case, the guy confessed. If he DIDN'T do it, he should not have said he did.

 

[steingar]

Ok, fair point - but in this case, the guy confessed. If he DIDN'T do it, he should not have said he did.

While I certainly won't debate the point in this case (hey, I put up the thread and am pleased with the outcome) confessions can be coerced in a number of ways and are not always evidence of certainty.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Your metaphor about lawyers as garbage-men is deeply flawed. The legal system is the lubrication that allows our society to function. With the number of people living in the small area of modern societies, conflict is inevitable. If allowed to progress unchecked such conflicts lead to violence and destructive behavior. However, the legal system allows parties to seek redress in a nonviolent fashion, with application of violence left to legal professionals who are supposed to be neutral. Leaving the practice of law for such philosophical concerns is foolish at best. Leaving because you don't like being a lawyer does make sense though.

I agree, 100%, with everything you've written - with the exception of the first sentence.

I make the comparison not because of what the law does, which is, beyond any doubt, necessary to society (the law and opposable thumbs are the only things that separate us from other animals). Rather, I make the comparison because, with very few exceptions (e.g., adoptions), an attorney makes his living off of the misfortunes, disputes, and petty squabbles of other people. Like garbage, these are things that happen as a natural result of the nature of humanity; yet, like garbage, they also stink. Which is why I think of legal disputes as "social refuse" - be they civil or criminal, these disputes are unavoidable, someone has to deal with them, but at the end of the day, you're covered in the filth of that with which you deal.

I don't mean this comparison as derogatory - to either garbagemen or attorneys. They're jobs that, if we want to live in a society that doesn't have crap on the streets or daily Hatfield-McCoy occurrences, have to be done.

It's merely an observation on the nature of the business.

Nothing you do stops the garbage from accumulating, but you can make lives better for people, and for society as a whole, by helping to remove it. Yet, there are people who don't want anything to do with you because they think you stink; and even when you go home to take a shower, you know you're just going to stink again the next evening.

You do it either because you're paid to do it, because you enjoy doing it, or because you recognize the value in what you're doing. But what you're dealing with still smells bad, and there are days where you wonder, "isn't there a job that doesn't involve rotten vegetables and spoiled milk, or horribly mangled bodies and unreasonable people."

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

While I certainly won't debate the point in this case (hey, I put up the thread and am pleased with the outcome) confessions can be coerced in a number of ways and are not always evidence of certainty.

On this note, the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the police from lying to you.

In other words, if the police tell you they've got your DNA at the scene, an eyewitness who will identify you, and a video showing you in the area, would you consider confessing?

In the hopes that I'd get 10 years with a chance of parole, rather than 40 years with no chance of parole, I - who understand the law - would certainly consider it, even if I hadn't done it.

And that's why attorneys are valuable. They can verify whether that evidence exists and, if it doesn't, they'll use that interview tape at your trial, showing that dishonesty on the part of the police in an attempt to get a confession out of you.

 

[AdamZ]

Partially. It very much is the parents fault for raising their child in such a way that he was willing to commit crimes, but I also understand that once a child turns 18, they are responsible for their own crimes....

Now - under 18, tried as adult? Make the parents pay.

In Pennsylvania if a Juvenile is adjudicated delequent and put in placement the parents have to basically pay the county child support toward the cost of their placement.

 

[steingar]

I agree, 100%, with everything you've written - with the exception of the first sentence.

I make the comparison not because of what the law does, which is, beyond any doubt, necessary to society (the law and opposable thumbs are the only things that separate us from other animals). Rather, I make the comparison because, with very few exceptions (e.g., adoptions), an attorney makes his living off of the misfortunes, disputes, and petty squabbles of other people. Like garbage, these are things that happen as a natural result of the nature of humanity; yet, like garbage, they also stink. Which is why I think of legal disputes as "social refuse" - be they civil or criminal, these disputes are unavoidable, someone has to deal with them, but at the end of the day, you're covered in the filth of that with which you deal.

I don't mean this comparison as derogatory - to either garbagemen or attorneys. They're jobs that, if we want to live in a society that doesn't have crap on the streets or daily Hatfield-McCoy occurrences, have to be done.

It's merely an observation on the nature of the business.

Nothing you do stops the garbage from accumulating, but you can make lives better for people, and for society as a whole, by helping to remove it. Yet, there are people who don't want anything to do with you because they think you stink; and even when you go home to take a shower, you know you're just going to stink again the next evening.

You do it either because you're paid to do it, because you enjoy doing it, or because you recognize the value in what you're doing. But what you're dealing with still smells bad, and there are days where you wonder, "isn't there a job that doesn't involve rotten vegetables and spoiled milk, or horribly mangled bodies and unreasonable people."

Such thoughts can be applied to practically anyone who deals with the general public. There is a selection process for criminal attorneys to be certain; most people won't need one until they get into trouble. Then again, most people don't need a doctor until they get sick. If I had my choice of people who smell bad or people who can make me sick, I think I know where my vote would go.

 

[AdamZ]

True dat. I think it was Lincoln that said something along the lines of:

I'd rather a million guilty men go free than see one innocent man in jail.

BUT....there are times when the defending attorney knows the person is guilty....attorney/client privilege gives them that ability...but the defending attorney still successfully defends the person.

That, and only that, is where I mean they deserve to get the massive amount of money they get to sell their soul. And again, selling one's soul gives enough money to buy the comforts necessary for a good night's sleep.

Well I sure dont' disagree with you that the attorneys deserve more but please don't say its for "selling thier soul" Thats not what we are doing at all!! We are trying to ensure the integrity of our system of justice. Equating all attorneys to the Johnny Cocherans and F. Lee Bailys of the world are like saying all pilots are rich playboys.

 

[SCCutler]

Well I sure dont' disagree with you that the attorneys deserve more but please don't say its for "selling thier soul" Thats not what we are doing at all!! We are trying to ensure the integrity of our system of justice. Equating all attorneys to the Johnny Cocherans and F. Lee Bailys of the world are like saying all pilots are rich playboys.

Let me suggest that, if an attorney were assigned to defend a criminal defndant and, convinced of the defendant's guilt, he chose to purposely do a less-than-competent job of defending him - that lawyer would truly have sold his soul.

 

[AdamZ]

Let me suggest that, if an attorney were assigned to defend a criminal defndant and, convinced of the defendant's guilt, he chose to purposely do a less-than-competent job of defending him - that lawyer would truly have sold his soul.

Amen my friend Amen!

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Let me suggest that, if an attorney were assigned to defend a criminal defndant and, convinced of the defendant's guilt, he chose to purposely do a less-than-competent job of defending him - that lawyer would truly have sold his soul.

Good observation - I completely agree.

 

[Ghery]

I want to thank the lawyers in this thread for the education they're providing. The take on defence attorney work presented here gives a side of the story that you don't often hear. While I prefer to see the scum rot in a cell with the key thrown away, the work you do is important for the reasons you state. Thank you.

And this from an engineer who generally regards lawyers as the enemy.

 

[woodstock]

And this from an engineer who generally regards lawyers as the enemy.

hee hee! hey, I know you!! (usually you are disguised as a sales person though...)

 

[Ghery]

hee hee! hey, I know you!! (usually you are disguised as a sales person though...)

Ouch! Low blow! (apologies to any sales types on the board).

 

[AdamZ]

I want to thank the lawyers in this thread for the education they're providing. The take on defence attorney work presented here gives a side of the story that you don't often hear. While I prefer to see the scum rot in a cell with the key thrown away, the work you do is important for the reasons you state. Thank you.

And this from an engineer who generally regards lawyers as the enemy.

Your welcome and much thanks to you Ghery for understanding!

 

[Mason]

Let me suggest that, if an attorney were assigned to defend a criminal defndant and, convinced of the defendant's guilt, he chose to purposely do a less-than-competent job of defending him - that lawyer would truly have sold his soul.

A lawyers only job is to represent his (her) client to the best of his (her) ability. Period.

To do any less would be malpractice.

Mase
(not a lawyer)

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Look at OJ, for instance. Most of us agree that he was guilty. BUT, he didn't walk because of his defense attorneys. He walked because the prosecutors were absolutely horrible. I mean bad. Bad to the point that they didn't prove their case. The defense attorneys, through what I consider to have been exceptionally competent work, held the state to that burden - and the state didn't meet it. I mean, some of the evidence presented actually indicated that OJ didn't do it.

Great example, and I agree wholeheartedly. I was in college then, so I spent a lot of time watching it on TV. Yeah, I think he probably did it, but if they had convicted him based on what I saw presented, I'd have been freakin' scared.

Big thanks to Dave, Adam, and Spike for your contributions on this thread. It's given me a much better understanding of the dark side of things (defending evil people). Very interesting.

 

[Geico266]

Even for a guy like this I have a problem with the death penalty. Let him molder in jail with the others of his kind. There has been at least one innocent victim executed that I know of, and that's one too many for me. YMMV.

Since 1900 there have been over 20 put to death later found to be innocent. I agree, one it way too many. The death penalty should be abolished.

 

[woodstock]

Ouch! Low blow! (apologies to any sales types on the board).

Actually, I love working with engineers. They "get it" and even if they don't they are too busy with their own jobs to get in your way.. the sales guys on the other hand... so far, my experience is that they not only "don't get it" (all this legal stuff...) and that doesn't prevent them at all from having very strong opinions about The Way Things are Supposed to Be. Plus they seem to have built into their job descriptions the time and inclination to harass legal. (apologies to any sales types on the board... if you aren't the above, please come work for me).

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...

Big thanks to Dave, Adam, and Spike for your contributions on this thread. It's given me a much better understanding of the dark side of things (defending evil people). Very interesting.

Glad to have been of help.

 

[Everskyward]

Since 1900 there have been over 20 put to death later found to be innocent. I agree, one it way too many. The death penalty should be abolished.

+1. Even though there are people for whom I would gladly pull the lever or put a bullet between their eyes, I don't think it should be the function of the government.