Plea Bargains And Ethics

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
Unethical for me. Because if I felt his crime was serious enough to warrant ten years, I could not in good conscious act to get him off. That is, I would likely feel that twenty years, while an injustice, was a better outcome than him getting off without punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

This raises a few interesting thoughts for me.

Are we saying that the difference between 10y and 20y is less than the difference between 10y and 0y? My kneejerk reaction is to agree with you.

Also, does anything change if we alter the defendants age? 20YO man vs 55YO man?

How about how we gauge his likeliness to reoffend?

[knowledgeORbust]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, does anything change if we alter the defendants age? 20YO man vs 55YO man?

How about how we gauge his likeliness to reoffend?


[/ QUOTE ]
I think these are both important and need to be applied for a general "read" on the individual. In very specific circumstances if I "read" the person as a good-natured person, I might be inclined to defend him: young kind, marijuana dealing or maybe some kinds of hallucinogens, with an otherwise good head on his shoulders. In something like 95%+ of the cases I'm going to think it's unethical to defend the person, but there will be outliers whom I feel differently about.

[ QUOTE ]


If so, then by not defending him I am basically finding him guilty of something I KNOW he HASN'T done.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a minor concern, but has impact in my decision to defend a very small % of these cases.

[DougShrapnel]

Can i assume that a crime that "deserves" 10 years is a different crime than one that "deserves" 20?

[Shandrax]

The defense attorney should drop the case because he cannot reach an agreement on the goal of their defensive strategy in this case, thereby avoiding any ethical problems. He may lose a customer that way, but he will certainly sleep better.

[glorfindel]

It would be unethical for the defense attorney, having accepted the job , not to provide the best defense possible. Although he thinks the best defense is for his client to accept the plea bargain, if his client refuses, he must attempt, to the best of his legal ability, to gain acquital. This is why defense attorneys often gain acquitals based on legal "technicalities," although they're certain their client is guilty.

The defense attorney cannot "get into trouble" over what his client says under oath. He's not the one committing perjury.

[PantsOnFire]

From a logical standpoint:

If this attorney cannot continue in this case due to his ethics, and all other attorneys have the same "admirable" ethics, then this client cannot be represented properly and the justice system has failed.

If this attorney does represent his client but cannot fully carry out his duties as a criminal defense lawyer, and all other attorneys would have the same inabilities, then the justice system has failed.

From a philosohical standpoint:

This attorney is representing more than his client. He is representing and defending the integrity of the system of justice and democracy in general. Who is so above this system as to be able to determine, before trial, who should be defended and who should not? Is that not declaring guilt before the trial?

So what about your question of ethics regarding an attorney asserting his client didn't do the crime when in fact the client had confessed or admitted it to this attorney? Well, I would look at this differently than "asserting" innocence. It should be considered more a case of defending democracy, procedure and the frew way of life. That attorney is the the make sure that the state has followed all procedures, dealt with all evidence properly and presented a case that a jury feels shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If that attorney was not there to do his job or did his job half-heartedly due to his own "ethic", then justice surely would not be served. The state could just it's "evidence" and with no defence march the guilty bastard straight to prison.


Side note: Plenty of people confess or admit to crimes they didn't commit for reasons like protecting a loved one or just being mentally unstable. If we simply declared everyone who confessed guilty and put them away, we would likely be allowing the real criminal to be free.

[hitch1978]

So what you are saying, pants, is that it is the job of the prosecution to try the defendant. The job of the defence however, is to try the prosecution? I like it. And it does allow us to balance our moral standpoint.

Also, Doug, you wrote - "Can i assume that a crime that "deserves" 10 years is a different crime than one that "deserves" 20? "

Yes tou can. You can also assume that it is different than one that deserves an aquital, and therin lies the dilema. The deserved penalty is not on offer in this hypothetical scenario.

[Lestat]

I believe this is why good defense attorneys don't ask and wouldn't want to know about actual guilt or innocence. This way...

The attorney can reason "if" his client is guilty 10 years is a proper sentence. He can then negotiate a plea bargain however, if his client refuses it and now the prosecuter demands an unreasonable sentence, the defence attorney is within his ethical rights to get his client acquitted of all charges.

[diddyeinstein]

[ QUOTE ]
Unethical for me. Because if I felt his crime was serious enough to warrant ten years, I could not in good conscious act to get him off. That is, I would likely feel that twenty years, while an injustice, was a better outcome than him getting off without punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this was a good response.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The attorney can reason "if" his client is guilty 10 years is a proper sentence.

[/ QUOTE ]

We could sure cut down a lot of costs if we just allowed the defense attorney to decide the guilt/innocence/punishment of their client.
I prefer a system where it's a group effort. One not unlike the current system where the defense attorney advises and represents his client and other party's represent the 'victim'. That gets us away from the Hatfield and McCoy approach of other cultures, where the families of the victims decide the punishment and there is no impartial evidence evaluation.
DS's hotel room settlement of poker cheats is a form of the other cultures approach, and it is a quick, efficient method, it just lacks 'fairness' in the 'equal treatment' concept we have. Justice in those cases very much depends on who knocks on your door, which is what western justice systems try to avoid ( as well as being a counter to government heavyhandedness ... such as the Duke rape case illustrates).

luckyme