Ok, I know all about the "innocent until proven guilty" and "everyone deserves a fair trial" stuff, so spare the lecture
-
stevenackerman69 — 15 years ago(May 25, 2010 06:59 PM)
Good point. Maybe she was court appointed, but she could've been like that defendant's lawyer in Twelve Angry Men, where she could resent it and just decide, "Hey, this person is guilty. I don't care about trying to get him off. I won't do my job well and if he fires me, fine. If he doesn't, he'll still go to jail and that will be that."
-
jenni_doll_1 — 15 years ago(May 25, 2010 11:18 PM)
""Hey, this person is guilty. I don't care about trying to get him off. I won't do my job well and if he fires me, fine. If he doesn't, he'll still go to jail and that will be that." "
That's not what defense attorneys are here to do, it's not a part of their job, it's a violation of the oath they take, and it's a good way to not only get removed from a case, but disbarred. As I had stated earlier, what if every lawyer did that? How would there be any kind of a just legal system at all? There wouldn't be. Lawyers do not have the legal right to take it upon themselves to not defend their clients to the best of their ability based on personal bias anymore than doctors have the right to decide whose lives they will save or not. It's not about a personal choice, it's about an obligation they take on as professionals in their line of work. As far as the defense attorney's refusal to take part in the mutual examination of the evidence, she declined because the defense was already promised to receive a percentage of the evidence to conduct their own tests. That was promised to the defense in writing by the prosecution and was not delivered. It didn't matter if the defense agrees to take part in a mutual examination or not. The defense still has every legal right to have a percentage of the evidence to conduct their own tests regardless, which they didn't get. It was a mistake on the part of the prosecution and it's the reason the case was thrown out. Even if Doob's attorney had agreed to participate in the mutual examination of evidence, that wouldn't negate the agreement made by the prosecution to release a portion of the evidence. -
poyzun — 11 years ago(November 25, 2014 09:06 PM)
I've seen paid attorneys and defense attorneys in action, and I can see a lot of difference in their portrayals; paid attorney really investigate and come up with all the facts to present to the judge. DA's don't bother that much. My boyfriend, about ten years ago had done something and his DA was just about worthless! A paid lawyer is so very much more thorough, it just proves that money talks..
Poyzunus 1 -
red_rackham_77 — 15 years ago(May 25, 2010 12:02 PM)
The system isn't perfect but it is there to keep the world from going into ciaos or turning into a Salem Witch trial and the Inquisition. We know Dobb is guilty because this is a film but in real life, we have to make sure that cases are fair and truly justified.
-
peep4000 — 15 years ago(May 25, 2010 12:08 PM)
Exactly, Red. The plot did seem to contradict itself, though. The cops and courts weren't too upset about Julie's rape and murderthey certainly wouldn't be very upset about a good for nothing s**tbag like Robert Doob. I doubt Karen would have spent the rest of her life behind bars (considering), but she undoubtably would have spent time. That FBI agent was not warning her against it to be evil/condescending. Their job is simply to enforce the law. If you read between the lines, she was giving her a way to do it without getting in trouble. Yes, it's a screwy system, but we must have lines drawn somewhere. If we opened the door to allow civilians to kill to justify a murder, you think it'd stop there? Not on your life. It would continue to open doors, to allow killing for anythingsoon people would be killed just for looking at somebody cross-eyed. A civilized society would never last if we did that. Again, the system is far from perfect. But it's there to protect the rights of citizens. Every single individual. No matter who it is.
-
Avwillfan89 — 15 years ago(July 07, 2010 12:57 PM)
Al Pacino made a very good definition in the film And Justice For All.
"What is justice? What is the intention of justice? Its intention is to make sure the guilty are proven guilty and the innocent are freed. Sounds simple right? Only it's not that simple. The problem is both sides wanna win, they wanna win regardless of the truth, justice exc.. winning is everything." -
TheFatDruidofNacyl — 15 years ago(March 16, 2011 05:15 AM)
She seemed to enjoy her victory so I don't think it was simply she had to do the best job because it is her oath. I do feel she likes to win and will do it at any cost. Kind of reminds me of the Devils Advocate.
Come visit my
blackrosecastle.com
stephentheblackroseenterprises.com -
taylorje — 14 years ago(September 16, 2011 08:03 AM)
Reminds me of a movie called "Final Justice" starring Annette O'Toole. She plays a woman who kidnaps the defense attorney who got her brother's killer off. She forces him, at gunpoint, to get into a dog kennel in the back of her SUV. He says "I really don't do my best work in kennels." The movie is not a comedy, just that I think this scene is hilarious.
-
-
Catnip86 — 11 years ago(December 25, 2014 09:28 AM)
Yes, I hate it too.
A criminal chooses to attack an innocent person who fights back. Criminal is arrested, but both need to go to the hospital.
Criminal now has right to health care because he was arrested for the crime he chose to commit. Criminal does not pay one cent for heath care. Care is paid for by law-abiding people.
Victim, however, does not have the right. Victim has to pay for every cent of his own health care, or do without it. -
Catnip86 — 11 years ago(December 28, 2014 08:30 AM)
Unfortunately, that's not how it is. Bleeding hearts decided that since "we" are "keeping the poor dears locked up" (just because they raped, murdered, etc) they should have rights no law-abiding person has.
-
GIRobotII — 10 years ago(December 04, 2015 10:49 AM)
Believe me, OP and everybody else here, I hate the system too. But defense attorneys are important when it comes to innocence and guilt in a courtroom. Even if they'd personally just as soon have nothing to do with an accused, they have to do their job and represent them to the best of their ability. Objectivity must take the place of subjectivity (personal biases, emotions, etc), no matter what the case is about. How that woman felt about Doob personally was beside the point. She probably was revolted by him. Nevertheless, she had to defend him to the best of her ability, regardless of any personal feelings toward him. Just like a doctor has to treat a patient the best they can, no matter who it is. Hippocratic oath. If it wasn't for defense attorneys, innocent people would be punished unjustly. Just as guilt must be exposed and punished, innocence at the same time must be protected.