Dear Prudence

Re: Public Defender

Sundown — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:36:29 GMT

I'll, "sweetie" you right back. I'm sorry you apparently missed the fact the LW is on the criminal side of things. (Which, of course, makes all your neat stats about civil cases meaningless.) But, have fun watching your Matlock reruns! I know it must have really rocked your world when that got cancelled a couple decades ago.

Re: Public Defender

oh_honestly — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:07:59 GMT

Sweetie, you're the clueless one. Criminal lawyers are an exception in their profession in that they see the inside of courtroom more than once in their career most attorneys don't ever see one. Especially not in trial. In civil litigation about 3% of filed cases ever go to trial. Yes THREE. I'm not sure what 'thrive on questions' means but masters of debate is laughable. In law school we survive socratic teaching methods but it doesn't go much beyond that. Outside of television shows, everything that goes on in trials is well rehearsed and not a surprise to either side. If something comes up as a surprise then either that party wasn't doing their job or the other party has violated the civil and/or criminal rules of procedure. It's not Matlock in the real world. Everyone has conducted depositions and inquiries. In legal transactions, basically everything is done after days of internal discussion and research.

As for the discussion, it might be interesting but not:a) when it's presented as an attack on an already difficult profession and b) when it's the umpteenth time you've had the same conversation with people who don't know what they're talking about.

So - is it a fake letter?

tonto_goldberg — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:08:36 GMT

You have hit a key indicator of a fake letter - the LW doesn't appear to know the most basic facts about his or her chosen profession. That had better be a fundamental principle in a legal education, if the young wannabe lawyer was awake and attending class that day they would know it.

You said, "the part about defending people you know are guilty is a legitimate (and very interesting) topic." An attorney who can't represent a guilty client in a professional and competent manner needs to find other work, and quickly. Disbarment is the ultimate penalty for such failure. Guilty persons need and deserve a fair trial and a just punishment just as much as innocent persons deserve a fair trial and exoneration from the charges against them.

Re: Public Defender

Sundown — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:11:38 GMT

I just hope that I'm never in the position to need this public defender's services. If they're this clueless and rattled about people's comments at dinner parties and the like, can you imagine what they must be like in the courtroom when the pressure's really on?

Lots of insecurity in that letter. The "getting them off" questions would get old, but the part about defending people you know are guilty is a legitimate (and very interesting) topic. The LW seems to think every question is a judgement, which is very odd for somebody who works with the law. Aren't they supossed to thrive on questions and be masters of debate?

Public Defender

Yasmin.no.e — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:15:20 GMT

Many years ago, on the show "Hill Street Blues", the public defender was also asked how she could work so hard to "get off" those she knew were guilty. She answered that she was NOT trying to "get them off", she was making sure they got a fair trial. She said something else to the effect that to do otherwise was to lower herself and our society. Her answer has stuck with me, even though I can no longer quote it exactly.

It's an excellent point, and one I recommend. Guilty or not, everyone deserves a fair trial, because we non-guilty citizens want our society to have such standards.