• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans & conservatives: Please respond!

What is your opinion of criminal defense attorneys?


  • Total voters
    13

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm having an argument in another thread regarding republican/conservative attitude of criminal defense attorneys. My generalization (and YES, I acknowledge it is strictly a generalization) is that republicans and/or conservatives generally do not hold a favorable opinion of criminal defense attorneys.

What is your opinion? I realize this is an extremely subjective poll with so many unknown variables, but again, this is strictly a generalization.

Please, for research purposes, I want to ask that democrats/liberals, libertarians, and independents (unless you consider yourself politically conservative) to refrain from voting in this poll.
 
Last edited:
Everybody loves to hate on criminal defense attorneys.... until they need one.
 
Everybody loves to hate on criminal defense attorneys.... until they need one.

I've heard, "everybody despises a lawyer until they need one." The phrase is not, in my observation, limited to criminal defense.

This poll, on the other hand, is limited to criminal law.
 
Well, I'll give you my firsthand experience.

A certain fellow was one of the best attorneys in my home county. He did a lot of things, but his particular specialty was criminal defense.

My best friend was murdered in a robbery at his business, at the mere age of 24. The att'y in question had previously served his mother in a long drawn-out case involving her late husband's property. He came to her and told her that he hoped she would understand that he had to do his utmost for the defendent and hoped she would not hate him for it.

Well, he certainly did a very skillful job of trying to cast doubt, question evidence, and otherwise find any loophole that would save his client, but to no avail; the murderer was sentenced to die and eventually executed.

The bereaved mother has never spoken to him again, to my knowlege.... in acting in the murderer's defense he said things that she considered to be hurtful lies and dishonest trickery and she did indeed hate him for it.

I can see both sides. Every accused person is entitled to a competent defense.... but this particular attorney didn't HAVE to be the one that took this particular case. That six-figure payday seduced him.
 
Goshin pretty much said it all.
 
Goshin said about what I feel. I can't fault defense attorneys for doing their jobs as long as they are ethical, however it's more the system that is broken than the attorneys themselves. If anything I can stand tort attorneys the least.
 
goshin pretty much explained it all.


from my experience with lawyers the ones that are NOT corrupt are few and far between.lawyers with ethics tend to be poor lawyers,and when i say poor i mean money in the bank poor.

its pretty much to be expected in a profession where the difference between 60k a year and 1mil+ a year is in whther ou are willing to throw innocent people under the bus or not.
 
I have nothing against the lawyers, I have a lot against the system. Defense lawyers exist to get their clients off, whether their clients are guilty or not. They aren't interested in justice, they're interested in a paycheck. The entire criminal justice system is dedicated to convicting or freeing criminals, not because they're guilty or not, but because it's an adversarial system. I'd much rather see a system where both sides work to find the facts and punish the guilty or free the innocent, not play word games to try to get your side off the hook.
 
Everybody deserves an adequate lawyer when in need of defense. I could never be a defense attorney, personally. I can't fathom the idea of defending bad people. If I won a case for somebody who later went on to commit serious crimes I'd never forgive myself for it.
 
to-may-to, to-mah-to. They defend the innocence of their client.

no, sometims they don't do that.

sometimes their client pleads guilty....as part of a plea-bargain.

sorry, but your understanding of the legal system is faulty.
 
Everybody deserves an adequate lawyer when in need of defense. I could never be a defense attorney, personally. I can't fathom the idea of defending bad people. If I won a case for somebody who later went on to commit serious crimes I'd never forgive myself for it.

From a very early age, I've always wanted to be a lawyer practicing in criminal law.

I just couldn't bring myself to do it. Partly for the reason you just expressed. As defense counsel, I couldn't bear defending those who I felt were guilty (and in the beginning of your practice, you can't be very picky with clients). As prosecuting counsel, I couldn't bear bringing an innocent man behind bars.
 
no, sometims they don't do that.

sometimes their client pleads guilty....as part of a plea-bargain.

sorry, but your understanding of the legal system is faulty.

Whatever, dude. You're making a stupid semantic argument for absolutely no reason. Don't insult me or my intelligence based on...well, absolutely nothing, really. Get over it, move on, make a point, or just plain stop responding to me. This little diatribe of yours is foolish and a waste of your time.
 
no, sometims they don't do that.

sometimes their client pleads guilty....as part of a plea-bargain.

sorry, but your understanding of the legal system is faulty.

They only do so when it's plainly clear that they cannot get them off the charges, they try to get them sentenced to a lighter charge by making a deal with the prosecution. Guilty ought to be guilty. You did the crime, you ought to do the time, period. It should never be a matter of whose lawyer is slicker, but of the actual offense committed.
 
What about a prosecutor?


If you need to convict someone or your job performance suffers, even if you believe the person to be innocent. There is no bonus in finding the truth, there is a paycheck in conviction or absolution.
 
They are a necessary part of the system. There are good lawyers, and there are asshole lawyers. But the system requires the duties that they perform. The same applies to all lawyers, not just criminal defense attorneys.
 
Defense attorney's are needed and required in our system. I think if I have any issues with them, it's that some are very shady. Otherwise, I've got no issues with defense attorney's specifically.
 
I'm having an argument in another thread regarding republican/conservative attitude of criminal defense attorneys. My generalization (and YES, I acknowledge it is strictly a generalization) is that republicans and/or conservatives generally do not hold a favorable opinion of criminal defense attorneys.

What is your opinion? I realize this is an extremely subjective poll with so many unknown variables, but again, this is strictly a generalization.

Please, for research purposes, I want to ask that democrats/liberals, libertarians, and independents (unless you consider yourself politically conservative) to refrain from voting in this poll.

Everyone does deserve to have adequate defense attorney to try to prove their innocence should they every get accused of something.That said I do fault the attorney should he or she knowingly take a case where he or she knows their client in guilty.As far as I know there is no law that says they have to take every case. I believe that defense should be limited to proving their client's innocence,not trickery, lies, suppression of evidence or exploiting loopholes to knowingly get a guilty person off the hook.
 
Back
Top Bottom