Now THAT'S a defense attorney (aka, "How was this shmuck not guilty?")

[rutang]

I have no opinion on whether the dude was guilty, b/c I'm an observer hearing second hand, sensationalized information. Some things to consider:

the word "rape" doesn't mean anything when talking about a conviction for having sex with a 12 year old. she could have been one of those bangin' early bloomers and she could have seduced him, the truth of the case could have been available, and he would have been convicted of "rape" I'm not saying that's what happened, but since consensual sex with a minor is "rape" the word doesn't neccessarily mean what everyone thinks it means.

Secondly, I'd love to have an underground bunker to store/grow weed. If I had such a bunker, that would make me no more likely to rape a girl, although it would probably drastically increase the likelihood of me being accussed of rape.

His accusers testified, he was acquitted by a jury of his peers with what had to be sub-par defense (he lives in a trailer, he didn't bring in Johnny Cochran) hell, he probably had a public defender. public defenders are all ass.

[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How so? I don't think it completely lets defense lawyers off the hook. To make a somewhat strained analogy, a hitman can't really be forgiven for killing people just because it's his job.

[/ QUOTE ]
meh. The difference is that we have a constitutional right to have our case made in public and be given a good defense. I don't like it when the bad guys are let go, but I am happy that they're given that opportunity.

[/ QUOTE ]

All things considered, the abuses that prevents are probably worth it. But on a case by case basis I think the defense lawyer can still be in the wrong, obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see how a defense lawyer can be in the "wrong" by agreeing to represent a reprehensible individual accused of a crime. Under the code of ethics of virtually every bar association in the land, that lawyer is sworn to execute his duties to the best of his ability, and to give any less of yourself is to violate your sworn duty to the court, and to the bar.

The fundamental fact about our constitutional protections ensuring fair trials is not to ensure convictions or acquittals, but to give the accused the same rights no matter whether they appear to be sweet little angels, or heinous devils. "Equal protection under the law".

It's analogous to the First Amendment -- it's not there to protect popular speech everyone agrees with, it's to protect the rights of those to make speech that is unpopular.

[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Failing to convict someone with a weak case brought against them >>>>> greater than wrongfully convicting someone who didn't do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell that to the dude in Illinois who was just exonerated by DNA evidence showing there was no scientific way possible he could have been guilty...but only after he served 25 years in prison.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think you understand greater than and less than signs

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand > and < just fine, thanks, just read your interpretation that it was a "greater" miscarriage of justice. My bad -- we obviously agree.