how can i represent people i know are guilty? it's easy. you know how, in the olympics, some gymnastics moves or dives have a degree of difficulty rating? the best athletes always try the most difficult moves. for me, that would be when my client has raped and murdered a busload of nuns on video. if i can get him off, see him walk out of the courtroom a free man, then my fellow lawyers award me the gold medal for the month. it not only enhances my self-esteem, but my earning power too. what do you do for a living?

What you missed was the concept of JUSTICE in legal defenses. You should be representing the client's best interest, not competing for a gold medal in "Best Manipulator of the System" for yourself. (And the best interest of the client is not to get away with committing crimes, it's to take responsibility for their own actions and not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment for doing so.)

I'd like to add on behalf of America: Thanks a ton for knowingly turning murderers and rapists back on the street to do it again in exchange for a gold star. We appreciate it.

um... hello previous responders to this post... the original question was from a public defender who was being asked rude questions about his work. sometimes when people get asked rude questions, one way to deal with it is to say something shocking back to them, which might make them aware that they've been rude. suite caroline is merely providing an example of this tactic, not laying out an actual philosophy of the practice of law.

If Officer Friendly ever pinches me, I'm hiring you.

If SC was using this as an example of a shock response tactic, it really wasn't articulated very well. It came across more as SC's philosophy of practicing law: challenging, competitive, financially rewarding, personally empowering. All excellent concepts for professional success, BTW. However, the specific profession requires an ethical responsibility to not enable those who are guilty (as SC implies regarding the video raping of a busload of nuns) for the sole purpose of winning "Best System Manipulator". The alleged perpetrator of the crime certainly deserves legal representation to insure that 1) the crime actually did take place (and it wasn't a consensual frat "You-Tube" stunt), 2) the accused is the actual perpetrator, 3) the investigation process did not violate due process principles which are intended to protect citizens against abuse of power. If the answer is yes to all 3, the legal representation is to insure that the perpetrator receives a fair sentence, is not cruel and unusual by society's standards, and reflects punishment for the crime, not the perpetrator's socioeconomic status, race, gender, religion, disability, or other antisocial predjudices.

Between me, Suite Caoline and Schuyler Cat, there are getting to be too many SC's around.

pollyanna, you exhibit a profound misapprehension of legal ethics. the role of a criminal defense lawyer is not to determine in his own mind what a just outcome would be, and then make common cause with the prosecutor in order to achieve it. the role of a criminal defense lawyer is to achieve the best outcome for his client, which is walking him, and to do anything within the limits of the law and the rules of ethics, and i mean anything, in order to achieve this outcome.

unlike dear prudence, i am not an advice columnist or entertainer, so i don't have to tolerate rudeness from strangers at parties, so my personal objective is to light up the first rude stranger so hard as to deter other potential idiots at the party from making the same social and legal error. i'm willing to trot out my rhetorical busload of raped and murdered nuns to achieve this objective, before i go freshen my drink. unlike some other lawyers, i don't see myself as an infinitely patient legal educator to strangers, so don't ask me rude questions, and above all else, don't get in my way.

 

Sorry, who raped the nuns again ? No wonder lawyers in America have such a bad rep.

What a c*** !

and I can't figure out if they really have no sense of humor/sarcasm meter, or if they're willfully thick. They like to ignore the fact that this is a column for entertainment only, nothing is to be taken too seriously and people who write to Prudie are generally not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Feel free to mock them unmercifully.

While I don't entirely agree with SC's idea that the defense lawyer should be proud of helping the Nun-Raping Murderer walk, if the prosecution can't convict that guy, who is on video, than it exposes a major problem in our legal system.

Look at the OJ case from 15 years ago. It should have been an open and shut case, the evidence was overwhelming. However, the prosecutor and police botched things so badly that they created reasonable doubt for the jury. What some people would call a technicality is what others call due process.

So, what is the result of OJ's case? Well, he didn't kill anyone else, he had to pay the Goldman family civil damages and he's in jail again for thievery. More importantly, prosecutors and police departments across the country have sharpened their evidence gathering procedures and millions of people watch CSI every week.

OJ walking was not justice per se, but it was not the fault of HIS lawyers that he walked, they did their jobs and the prosecution did not. If you want to get angry at someone for guilty people going free, point the finger at prosecutors and police who get lazy or who are incompetent.

SC, as a 3rd year law student with a sense of humor (!) your answer is a total win. You can have this month's gold medal just for that.

pollyanna and other haters, maybe you missed that whole thing where we assume a person's innocent until proven guilty, and that it's not the public defender that decides that. Even with the video of a busload of raped and murdered nuns.

I still can't figure out if they're doing it on purpose or are too dumb to have a sense of humor.

Not either/or, both/and. I'm reminded of the threads on kitten torture -- hundreds of people posting about how awful kitten torture is, utterly convinced that they are articulating some controversial position that needs defending. This is the same thing; people are under the insane delusion that our police forces are not horribly corrupt in today's America. Congresswoman Francine Busby can clear them up on that. Heck, OJ got off despite being guilty because the officers handling the case were so used to framing their victims that they forgot how to handle an open-and-shut case.

Well, it's really awful and it's hard to deal with. And I understand that. But the frame of mind necessary to even ask the Public Defender question is so delusional, I wonder if there's anything to possibly say in response to it other than to go all out offensive.

& when that freed murdering rapist rapes, steals your gold medal & murders you, I sincerely hope your colleges will fight just as hard to get a not guilt verdict again.