“How can you defend someone you know is guilty?” Certainly that is the number one asked question I get asked and I would bet its the most asked question of all Defense Attorneys throughout the country. The truth is that guilt or innocence is not relevant to representation.
In the United States we have protections that were put in place by our Founding Fathers. The protections are to insure we don’t get taken over, trampled on, abused, violated, (etc), by our government (this would include anyone working for the city, county, or state where you reside, or the federal government). It is a beautiful thing the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. I often use the analogy that if an individual commits a crime and everyone in the world saw the person do it, that person still has a Constitutional right to have a trial. She is still to be presumed innocent until the government proves them guilty and guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (if the government can). Even if everyone knows the individual did it and the prosecutor has not proven it to the required degree, then the Defendant must be found not guilty.
A Defense Attorney is in many ways a police officer of the Constitution (The highest law). We hold to the Constitution and require all government employees (usually just police, prosecutors, and judges.) to adhere to that law. Defense Attorneys often times get a bad wrap for defending those society assumes are already guilty. But we must not forget about this framework and that is the foundation of our country. Defense Attorneys are the one group that fight for it and us every day.
So go home (or click the links) and give yourself a Constitutional refresher, shake a Defense Attorney’s hand (or give them a hug), and when you see someone being arrested instead of presuming they are guilty (I do it sometimes too), try presuming they are innocent and think for once, Why are those cops hassling that poor guy, I hope they don’t violate OUR Constitutional Rights.
Innocent until proven guilty refers to legal as opposed to factual guilt. I don’t see a problem in the general public assuming someone is probably guilty of the crime they have been charged with when there is credible evidence that they committed the crime. The judge and jury don’t have this luxury, but the general public can make educated guess based on the facts they see.
If everyone in the world sees someone commit a crime – then they committed the crime. They are guilty of that bad act; the State may not be able to prove its case, but the guy is still a criminal.
I have no problem with defense attorneys and I think they play a vital role in our democracy. However, I disagree that people should ask themselves why the cop is hassling some guy rather than wondering what the guy did to get hassled. Police are also guardians of the the constitution and the laws that have been enacted thereunder. They just view their responsibilities from different perspectives.
Again, don’t get me wrong, I’m not a cop apologist – that youtube clip of the police tazing that preacher were ridiculous. I think everyone needs to held to the same standard.
Anyway, my main point is that just because someone isn’t legally guilty doesn’t mean they’re not factually guilty. I would not like to live next to a pedophile that was exonerated due to illegal search and seizure. And I’m pretty sure if my kid later got victimized by that pedophile that I would feel that justice to a higher law was served when the pervert got off.
This is a fun continuation of our conversation in the Tree Room kitchen five or six years ago.
Interesting perspective. I really enjoyed the response to this blog. Thanks again.