No Stupid Questions

defense attorneys are a vital aspect of modern justice, and its not simply unethical but utterly tyrannical to think that people aren't entitled to a vigorous and competent defense.

Without the process of a trial to determine guilt, you're literally just taking the prosecution's word for it. Without a defense attorney being a right, the outcome of trial is more likely to be predicated on if they can afford a lawyer. the average person simply cannot competently represent themselves. Hell. most lawyers know better than to represent themselves.

keep in mind, if someone is clearly guilty such that it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, most defense attorneys won't let you not plead guilty for a deal. Their obligation is to seek the best possible outcome for their client, and sometimes that means pleading out.

The fact that your moral line isn't that people are innocent until proven guilty, and that all people deserve the impartial application of justice and due process is worrying, to say the least.

Maybe take some time for introspection.

A friend of mine has defended a large number of pedophiles. The way he put it: the state is, in comparison to the criminal, so overwhelmingly strong, that even the worst criminal deserves a lawyer. If not, the criminal might easily be found guilty for additional things that he/she didn’t do, or get a sentence way too high for the crime.

Yes. Every innocent person deserves a chance to defend themselves.

Usually they're innocent until proven guilty.

As other commentors have pointed out, it's vital that justice is applied as uniformly as possible in the interest of maintaining a fair and truly just system. Defense attorneys are an important check on the state and ensure (at least in theory) that it has met its burden in proving guilt before a person can be convicted, however heinous their alleged crimes may be. Without this adversarial dynamic prosecutors would be free to paint whatever narrative they please, whether rooted in reality or not, and any semblance of actual justice would go completely out the window.

They're as good as anyone else.

Guess you won't have a defense attorney if you're ever wrongly accused then?

I mean, I just don’t really understand how lawyers can defend rapists, child predators, murderers, etc. I think I would have to have a moral line somewhere.

Justice relies on everyone having access to a defense. It's like being a nurse or doctor, you still have to try your hardest to save the bad people.

IF someone is certainly a child predator and the prosecution fails to prove this beyond reasonable doubt, then they're getting rusty and need you to be there to challenge them. Or... maybe your client (the defendent) didn't do it.

ALSO Defense lawyers will often end up advising a guilty party to just plead guilty. Which, when the party actually is guioty, is the best case scenario for everyone.

To be completely serious, playing ace attorney and watching courtroom drama movies helped me to understand this better than i can explain. Consider it if you're into those things.

They’re not breaking their clients out of jail, they‘re just collecting and presenting any evidence that conflicts with the prosecution’s narrative. Juries and judges depend on someone performing that role so they can make an informed decision.

Look at how many arrests take place in the US. Basic googling gives me 10mil in 2019.

People love to talk shit on how bad police departments are. So how many people got arrested and accused of something they truly didn't do? Who's gonna help them?

That's why. Their job is to provide pushback, to play devils advocate to make sure a case is more than just blind accusations. A defense attorney is there to keep a prosecution from turning into a witch hunt.

When a nurse looks at my dick, it isn't because she wants to look at dicks. It's her job. Let's not moralize professions. It's not about being a good or a bad person.

With that out of the way, I can only imagine psychopaths wanting a society in which defendants don't have defense attorneys. I'm not saying that you are a psychopath, of course. The reason is that - at least when it comes to criminal law - the "people", but really the state, have relatively unlimited legal resources at their disposal in trying to prove that you are guilty. If the state is allowed to have legally trained professionals on their side, it is only fair that you too can make your case, present your side of the story, with the help of a legal professional. Even if the court was to find you guilty - regardless of whether you actually committed the crime or not (since beyond that point you are legally and culturally a convict) - you still would want somebody who understands the law, the culture of the court, the bias of the judge, in order to let them fight for your right to a proportionate punishment.

3 part answer:

1. Yes. Many are deeply morally and ethically good people. I know a few personally. They view defending the indefensible as the price to pay for society to have a free, fair and functional justice system. They are true believers in what the legal system aspires to be, even when it doesn't always live up to its promise. They know a bad guy going free is harmful, but must be balanced against innocents being victimized by a vengeful society as more harmful. They love to lose when the evidence is compelling against their client knowing justice was served and the sometimes severe punishments are applied to a human being with their conscience clean.

2. No. Well, not always. There are shitty people everywhere. Criminal Defence can pay really well and pay and prestige attracts more than a few self serving dark triad types.

3. Same goes for judges. I am generally fond of European courts and Canadian courts where Judges are often appointed from lists created by comittees of law societies or their equivalent. Their peers tend to select the best legal minds among them as nominees. We tend to score very high in comparative analyses. Contrast this with the US election of judges and political appointees of Supreme Court Justices and, well, you can see dumpster fires of a bad system everywhere. Elected people are unduly influenced by the pressures of their electorate or campaign financiers. This tends to result in vengeful false convictions of innocents and disproportional persecution of underclasses, political or economic motivated injustices, and well heeled crooks and creeps going free.

Every defendant in the US is entitled to a presumption of innocence, and the Prosecution is obligated to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. So, a defense attorney can be seen as performing a valuable service, to keep Prosecutors in check, and make sure they are doing their jobs correctly.

But I do wonder sometimes if these defense attorneys ask their clients whether or not they did the thing, or if they expressly say "Don't tell me whether or not you did it"....

Well anyone must have the right to be defended, even rapist and child predators have rights you know...

Even the worst of the human beings is still a human being.

The way I've heard it, they will give rotten people the best possible defence so they can't appeal as easily.

Say you want to be an ethical defence attorney. So you tank your client's cases because they're rotten. First of all, they get appeals because their new lawyer can show where you messed up. Second, you don't get new cases, so you go deeper into debt to pay off law school. Make it make sense.

I think a lot of new lawyers dabble in defence while reaching for more lucrative work, because law school is expensive and they want more of their paycheck to go to paying the bills, and eventually buying nice things.

The question presumes that providing defense for someone that is guilty is more of an ethical problem than prosecuting someone that is innocent.

I believe the opposite. I think even if someone is guilty they deserve a fair defense.