• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Kill the Death Penalty

Prosecutor should have done their job better.

If a defendant pleads not guilty and you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed the crime then they shouldn't be in prison IMO. I mean that's what separates our country from countries where people are appointed judge, jury, executioner and accused don't get fair trials.
 
Last edited:
True, but in many people's mind (other than attorneys...haha) this is simply not a good thing. Most people want actual justice and not a game between the prosecutor and defense attorney with the client being the pawn in this game. Does that seem like true justice?
 
Way different as I have done this many times. My job is to preserve a persons life,and in this case, so they can face justice. Are you saying justice is not a part of an attorneys practice? If so, no wonder prosecutors cheat. Defense attorneys do all they can to get their clients off and prosecutors do all they can to convict the defendant. I was hoping for more of the desire for truth to prevail but I obviously live in lala land...haha. If this is the case, our judicial system is definitely in need of major overhaul. Justice should be the primary factor in determing guilt or innocence and not the skills of the attorneys. This is my utopia. Are you saying justice, defined simplicitically as we get what we deserve, and the truth have no bearing on one another?
 
"Innocent until proven guilty" is predicated on the idea that we don't "know" someone is guilty. And even if someone wants to admit guilt, they have every right to want someone to advocate for as little punishment as possible. Otherwise, "justice" is extremely one-sided.
 
I do not believe prosecutors should ever cheat. I understand defending a person who claims innocence to the full extent as you do never know true guilt or innocence. Have you ever had a client tell you they were guilty and you still attempting to have them declared innocent or are there no people who admit their guilt when presenting their case to you.
 
PhDeac said:
"Innocent until proven guilty" is predicated on the idea that we don't "know" someone is guilty. And even if someone wants to admit guilt, they have every right to want someone to advocate for as little punishment as possible. Otherwise, "justice" is extremely one-sided.
Click to expand...
I understand as little punishment as possible. But there should be some punishment for a guilty person, correct?
 
Criminal defense misconduct is a miniscule problem, esp when you consider that a tiny minority of defendants get anything like effective assistance of counsel. A huge majority of criminal defendants plead guilty without trial and without much of a defense at all, because in most cases the prosecution has all the leverage. HDS needs to educate himself on how criminal "justice" works in this country.
 
Actually, as many of you all are attorneys I appreciate the responses so I get to understand reality. In most people's lives, the knowledge of the judicial system is what we see on TV as I have never been to a court room. Thanks do educating me on the reality of our system. Are you saying, other than the outlier cases, justice usually prevails? Is justice an important concept or is it "old fashioned"? I do know, I am grateful I live in a country with the concept of presumed innocent until proven guilty.
 
Last edited:
I agree with bkf. It seems how he is describing the system is how it works and is sad. I seems if I "lawyer up", I could get away with anything. That is an injustice but is this the situation you are describing and with which you are fine with existing within?
 
Last edited:
HowardDeanSux said:
I agree with bkf. It seems how he is describing the system is how it works and is sad. I seems if I "lawyer up", I could get away with anything. That is an injustice but is this the situation you are describing and with which you are fine with existing within?
Click to expand...

If we admit that this is a problem, the solution is better access to legal counsel for poor folks not bringing everyone else down to that level.
 
I guess I feel a larger emphasis on justice and less emphasis on who has the best legal counsel is the answer. Are most lawyers on this board fine with the system as it is currently practiced? Is truth and justice secondary to getting the best deal for your client? Are you ok with this?
 
HowardDeanSux said:
I guess I feel a larger emphasis on justice and less emphasis on who has the best legal counsel is the answer. Are most lawyers on this board fine with the system as it is currently practiced? Is truth and justice secondary to getting the best deal for your client? Are you ok with this?
Click to expand...

You are asking this on a thread about getting rid of the death penalty?
 
bobknightfan said:
What these people are telling you is that justice & truth aren't really what is important. Getting the best attorney who can most successfully game the system ...and result in a miscarriage of justice, if necessary....is what makes a great society.

Kind of sad, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Everyone is entitled to a defense under the Constitution. What do you propose we do instead? Do we just waive that right when it seems like someone is guilty?
 
I don't think the system is perfect (no system is) but I have to agree with Junebug (this feels weird) that of all the problems out there that can be addressed and/or are issues, criminal defense attorneys zealously advocating for their client is so far down the list it's hardly even worth discussing. That's my opinion though.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Everyone is entitled to a defense under the Constitution. What do you propose we do instead? Do we just waive that right when it seems like someone is guilty?
Click to expand...

But that's basically what happens when people plea guilty.
 
Sure, I was just talking about the situations proposed where a client tells their attorney they did it and then they plead not guilty. If the defendant chooses to plead guilty then that's his right, but he hasn't waived the right to counsel in that situation like BKF and HowardDean seem to be suggesting should happen.
 
He shouldn't waive counsel, but it seems wrong if the attorney tries to get him off without any punishment. May just be "how it is". As you stated, it is better to ere on the side of innocence than guilty. It just seems like his is absolving the defensive attorney of any type of obligation of justice. I suppose that is the reality of the situation and is the best we can do. I would feel awful if I got a guilty person off for a crime (ie murder) I know they committed, and then the client committed the same crime again when the client should be in jail. It has been interesting to read an attorneys response on this board and will allow me to view this through a different lens.
 
Last edited:
I would just say that the client "should" only be in jail if convicted beyond a reasonable doubt - if that doesn't happen (or a guilty plea) then I don't view that as "should be in jail"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top