In Defense of Defense Attorneys
I am a lawyer, though not a criminal lawyer. (Or at least, I don't practice criminal law.) I mention this mostly to reveal my professional bias, which runs very much in favor of the Constitutional rights that criminal defendants enjoy in the United States. These rights are attacked by conservatives as "technicalities" that force the police to jump through hoops and allow guilty people to go free, and by leftists as get-out-of-jail-free cards that only the rich can afford. Of those two critiques I find the leftist one more persuasive, but my strong inclination would be to increase poor people's access to decent representation, not to strip away the rights.
Anyway that's my bias. I was therefore distressed to see people on Twitter criticizing Nikolas Cruz's defense attorneys (public defenders, it so happens) for describing him as a "broken child" who is sorry for his actions:
Something that may not be clear to non-lawyers is that our system is adversarial. It's not the defense attorney's job to seek some higher truth—to see that the defendant is convicted if he is guilty and acquitted if he is innocent. It's also not the defense attorney's job to address racial disparities by, say, providing unenthusiastic representation to white defendants. The defense attorney is supposed to do whatever it takes (within the bounds of law and ethics) to promote the interests of the defendant.
So if a defense attorney, motivated by a thirst for racial justice, said, "Look, unlike Tamir Rice, who was 12, my client is a fully-grown white man. He knew what he did was wrong, and he did it anyway. There's really no excuse for it, and there's no extenuating circumstances either," I would report that attorney to the disciplinary board. He would have no business being a defense attorney.
Now you may find it abhorrent to describe someone like Cruz in sympathetic terms. But this is actually one of the least abhorrent things a defense attorney is ever called upon to do. If your client is charged with rape, it is your job to question the accuser, to suggest (if it is plausible) that she consented to the sex, to cast doubt on her version of events. (Note that you don't have to suborn perjury, though, and you certainly don't have to be counterproductively aggressive.) This can be distasteful in the extreme, but it's part of the job. It is what keeps prosecutors from bringing shitty charges, it is what keeps innocent defendants out of prison. Not everyone is cut out for it. I'm certainly not. But I am grateful that there are lawyers out there willing to work for relatively little money to represent indigent defendants, and I am extremely unhappy to see those public servants called "abhorrent" for doing their jobs. To my mind it is the opposite of "shameful" for Cruz's attorneys to put his actions in the best possible light, to put forth exculpatory evidence, and generally to work their asses off to see that he is treated fairly.
Anyway that's my bias. I was therefore distressed to see people on Twitter criticizing Nikolas Cruz's defense attorneys (public defenders, it so happens) for describing him as a "broken child" who is sorry for his actions:
Absolutely abhorrent to describe this adult white man as a child when the black child victims of police brutality are constantly characterized as threatening and adult-like. Tamir Rice was a 12 years old. This man is 19. Shameful. https://t.co/TXQXJgu1RH— Michelle Pastor (@MushyPasta) February 16, 2018
Something that may not be clear to non-lawyers is that our system is adversarial. It's not the defense attorney's job to seek some higher truth—to see that the defendant is convicted if he is guilty and acquitted if he is innocent. It's also not the defense attorney's job to address racial disparities by, say, providing unenthusiastic representation to white defendants. The defense attorney is supposed to do whatever it takes (within the bounds of law and ethics) to promote the interests of the defendant.
So if a defense attorney, motivated by a thirst for racial justice, said, "Look, unlike Tamir Rice, who was 12, my client is a fully-grown white man. He knew what he did was wrong, and he did it anyway. There's really no excuse for it, and there's no extenuating circumstances either," I would report that attorney to the disciplinary board. He would have no business being a defense attorney.
Now you may find it abhorrent to describe someone like Cruz in sympathetic terms. But this is actually one of the least abhorrent things a defense attorney is ever called upon to do. If your client is charged with rape, it is your job to question the accuser, to suggest (if it is plausible) that she consented to the sex, to cast doubt on her version of events. (Note that you don't have to suborn perjury, though, and you certainly don't have to be counterproductively aggressive.) This can be distasteful in the extreme, but it's part of the job. It is what keeps prosecutors from bringing shitty charges, it is what keeps innocent defendants out of prison. Not everyone is cut out for it. I'm certainly not. But I am grateful that there are lawyers out there willing to work for relatively little money to represent indigent defendants, and I am extremely unhappy to see those public servants called "abhorrent" for doing their jobs. To my mind it is the opposite of "shameful" for Cruz's attorneys to put his actions in the best possible light, to put forth exculpatory evidence, and generally to work their asses off to see that he is treated fairly.
posted by James | 9:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home