So I've been keeping up with everything surrounding the shooting in Arizona recently, and I got to thinking; how does one come to the decision that they are able to create a defense for an obviously guilty party?
I mean, there is no denying the fact that Jared Loughner is guilty of shooting and wounding numerous people, including the Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and killing six. A number of people saw him do it, and two people tackled him on the spot. There is no question about what happened.
So how does someone honestly decide to defend such a person?
I don't think ill of his defense lawyer, because everyone does deserve to at least fully understand what's going on amongst all the laws and legalease and whatnot. Still, it boggles my mind as to how anyone can do that for someone like Loughner.
If I were in Clarke's shoes, I wouldn't be able to do it.
For as much grief as we put lawyers through with the jokes and the hard feelings, they really do have to make some tough decisions and do things they might not necessarily feel right about. Especially public defenders, who don't really have a choice about who they defend. At least 75% of their clients are probably guilty, and they still have to try and build a defense for them.
I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I knew my job might let criminals run free, no matter how petty the crime. I just couldn't do it.
And I can't imagine that in the beginning you can choose which cases to take, and which ones not to necessarily. Because until you've got that name for yourself, and notoriety, no one is going to hire you. So you have to join a firm and take what you can get.
My other thought though, is how good of a defense are these lawyers building at times anyways? Is it possible that a lawyer might not help a client to the full extent if they know they're guilty? I mean, lawyers are still people too, with emotions and consciences. It stands to reason that they might half-ass a job with a client that they know deserves jail time and not a free ride.
After what Loughner did, I know if I were Clarke I'd half-ass it. So I have to give her credit for even volunteering to step into the ring on this one, and giving it a go. I couldn't do it.
I couldn't do what most lawyers do. Not if I wanted to sleep at night.
I guess that is why we aren't lawyers, Sam.
ReplyDeleteI imagine it takes a very special type of person to do this type of work. I've always wondered, myself, how lawyers can bring themselves to defend the obviously guilty.
I have to remind myself that this is America, and that in America, everyone is entitled to due process no matter what. That is what makes our country so great.
Having accepted that case, Clarke has placed herself in a position where she must provide the best defense she can put together for him. It is her sworn oath to do so. Whether or not that happens, only she will know that answer for sure.
I would like to think that a lawyer taking on a case such as this would be prepared for the challenges morally, spiritually, and legally. Although, I am sure that is not always case.
The owness is really on the prosecutor to present an air tight case that will convince the jury to give this man everything he deserves. I don't think that will be too difficult for that person to do.
Do some lawyers just pi** off a case now and then. Sure they do. And, they are the ones who will answer for that in time. I believe that if you are going to commit yourself to a job, then you have to make a 100% commitment.