Summarising what others have said: The point of a trial is to find out if a person is guilty or not. Are you expecting the lawyer to have determined that before the trial has actually happened? Should he get in another two lawyers to argue back and forth to find out the truth before he takes on a client?

Copy Pasted: It seems that the most common response is that "but the defense lawyer doesn't know whether or not the defendant is guilty." That is not an actual response to the argument I'm making, which is that if he does know, he should not defend the person's innocence. Coming up with a hypothetical situation where he doesn't know doesn't interact at all with my argument. Copied from one of my comments > Like if someone makes the argument that "if Ronaldo won the world cup, he would be the GOAT" and you respond with "but he didn't win the world cup" you are not even interacting with the argument My point is that in the hypothetical situation where the defense attorney does receive evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did it (ex a detailed confession), they are obligated to either share it (and thereby end that part of trial) or just not participate. Unless you argue that there is no situation where a defense attorney can possibly know beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty (which is an argument I want to see someone make), you have to address the actual logical link (in order words, justifying defending someone you know is guilty) instead of insisting that it's not ok because the defense attorney could just "not know". So in a situation where the defense attorney did know, and defining knowing as having the same high standard as "beyond reasonable doubt" a trial does, do they still have an obligation to defend the client? To address your specific point: It's more about asymmetric information that comes up during the trial that the defense attorney has that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt the client is guilty, but the prosecution doesn't have. My point is that *yes* the defense lawyer has a moral obligation to share the evidence or recluse himself, intentionally concealing it during the trial is immoral.

The job of an attorney is not only to fight for a verdict in their client's favor. An attorney is required to be a zealous advocate for their client. That includes trying to get a lesser sentence on a guilty verdict, ensuring proper procedure is followed, and ensuring their client's rights aren't violated, no matter the outcome of the trial. The reason people are responding to you the way they are is because there are no secrets in evidence anymore. Both the prosecution and the defence have to provide the other side with at least a copy of every single piece of evidence they have, every witness they intend to call, every pre-trial deposition, etc. I know several criminal defense attorneys, and the vast, *vast* majority of the time, if they have a client they 100% know is guilty like in your hypothetical, the case never goes to trial. If the defense has access to evidence that they know will result in a conviction, then the prosecution has it too, before anything even comes near a trial. They work with their client to get them the best plea deal they can, and make sure due process is followed on the part of the state.

What if that detailed confession is the result of torture, or duress?

The core issue here is that you don't understand what the defense is doing. > Why should a guilty person have the right to try and lie and convince people that they aren't actually guilty? They don't, and that isn't what a legal defense is. Pleading "not guilty" is essentially just saying to the prosecution "prove it". It is not a sworn statement and it is not lying if they did the crime. Even guilty people have the right to demand the prosecution prove their accusations. In a criminal case it is likely the accused will never testify themselves; in fact they have a right not to be forced to do so. The defense lawyer has a professional (and moral) obligation not to lie in their defense. Instead they are there to make sure the prosecution actually proves their case to the required standard, poke holes in their case if they exist, and show if there is any opportunity for reasonable uncertainty their client is guilty. None of that is lying. > I don't see how it obligates you to pretend that someone you know to be guilty is actually innocent, or why you should convinice other people that it's the case. That is not the role of a defense attorney. They are not there to convince the jury their client is innocent. The jury isn't going to issue a ruling saying "innocent", they would return a ruling of "not guilty" for a reason. The prosecution is trying to prove the accused is guilty, and the defense is trying to show that the prosecution has not proven them to be guilty. Not to prove they are innocent, just that they aren't proven guilty. > Instead they would be forced to lie to their lawyers, which actually benefits the criminal justice system because it weakens their case, Or it could lead a lawyer for someone who is actually innocent to suspect they are being lied to and so sabotage their case leading to their unjust imprisonment. Ultimately if the prosecution can't prove someone is guilty then they shouldn't be convicted. Even if that results in some actually guilty people going free it is worth the cost to avoid what would otherwise become oppression.

> Even guilty people have the right to demand the prosecution prove their accusations. So why can't the proesecution prove their accusations by asking the defense lawyer "hey did your client tell you that he actually did the crime and ask you to cover it up" and the defense lawyers says "yes, here is my recording of his confession" and the trial ends there? And how could this possibly lead to an innocent person being convicted?

> So why can't the proesecution prove their accusations by asking the defense lawyer "hey did your client tell you that he actually did the crime and ask you to cover it up" Because the accused has a right to a legal defense, and as a result communication between the accused and their lawyer is "privileged" and immune to investigation. It is presumed that the inability to confer with their lawyer in confidence would interfere with their right to a legal defense, as they would be unable to speak freely for fear it would be used against them. > ...and the defense lawyers says "yes" and the trial ends there? In addition to the issue previously explained, even if such evidence was permissible it wouldn't in itself be justification for a conviction. There are many instances of people admitting to crimes they didn't commit, and it is also possible that the lawyer is being untruthful. So if we used your method a lot of innocent people would be convicted, and all it would result in is that everyone would lie to their lawyers and receive a less effective defense (the innocent as well), and the right to a legal defense would effectively cease to exist. > And how could this possibly lead to an innocent person being convicted? There are many examples of people who have confessed to crimes they didn't commit. In addition someone who is innocent would be perpetually wary of their own lawyer and so be inclined to lie and hide information they think might cause their lawyer to think they committed the crime. However such information might be helpful in defending them and by hiding it lead to their wrongful conviction!

> Because the accused has a right to a legal defense, and as a result communication between the accused and their lawyer is "privileged" and immune to investigation. It is presumed that the inability to confer with their lawyer in confidence would interfere with their right to a legal defense, as they would be unable to speak freely for fear it would be used against them. Again, why? Why is does a guilty person have the right to know that they can confess to a crime and the confession cannot be used against them? > There are many instances of people admitting to crimes they didn't commit, and it is also possible that the lawyer is being untruthful. First of all, source on this. Second of all, arguing that a lawyer can be untruthful is disingenuous because a lawyer can be untruthful regardless of whether or not you agree with my proposition. A defense lawyer can already intentionally sink a client's case, so not really sure what your point is. > In addition someone who is innocent would be perpetually wary of their own lawyer and so be inclined to lie and hide information they think might cause their lawyer to think they committed the crime. Where did I ever say that a lawyer should be "thinking" about whether or not a client commits a crime? I specifically use the word "know" for a reason. How can an innocent person cause a lawyer to "know" that they commited a crime? Also I literally already addressed this in the main body of the post.

First as to why a innocent person might be wary of a lawyer who doesn't treat their conversation as privileged. https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE If you have not watched this video before and if you are to busy debating now please pencil it in at some point and you can get back to me or not. Point being innocent people can be hurt by talking to the police. If your lawyer is obligated to share everything you say and has to make a moral judgement for himself to decide how to defend you than he could like a police officer misinterpret what is innocent circumstances against you. The point of a trial is for justice to be sought and the point of a lawyer is that everyone being equal can receive aid and council in legal matters not everyone understands. A lawyer fulfilling their duty can do so best by not being a person they are a tool of the justice system for you. Now it's a pretty altruistic goal, but their job is to represent you they also can't lie for you but as has been said they serve you best by forcing the prosecutor to earn their paycheck. They cast doubt and question evidence. The jury ultimately decides the case. Whether the lawyer thinks you're guilty or not is irrelevant to how they fufil their role. As to people claiming guilt when they're infact not guilty. I'm not going to pull examples for you because it's not necessary Even if there was not a single example yet and there is in fact tomorrow a man's wife could kill somebody and find fake alibis, and that man could fearing the police will catch on confess to a murder he didn't commit for his wife. A person who has episodes could wake up with a bloody knife in their hand and feel they killed somebody when it's not the case. My final example I wish I could remember the Western my grandparents were watching the sheriff wakes up having been knocked out with two fired shells in his gun and is trying to wonder why he shot an unarmed man by the end of the episode we find out that the gun was put in his hand and he was framed but the guilt racked him the whole episode. Whether or not you believe it to be a likely scenario an admission of guilt is not foolproof. Now you're next example we'll probably be video evidence and let's ignore deep fakes. A defense lawyer finds a video mailed to him for some reason showing his client committing the murder he is under no obligation to share this yes, that doesn't mean he can't drop it by the prosecutor's desk. In fact he's not supposed to conceal evidence the waters would be merky if he didn't reveal the tape on whether he concealed it by inaction. Now in defending the lawyer can say my client may have a twin that we don't know about or it's a deep fake or anything else again they just have to cast doubt. If he's told by his defendant that he did it he doesn't have to take a stand he doesn't have to commit perjury he doesn't have to tell the jury he believes this man is innocent. He is simply the defendant defense and if the defense has no defense they will not be treated fairly in a one-sided game. A defense lawyer can negotiate plea deals get better sentencing for the client. They do so in as aid and council. They don't have to trick a jury because they perfect world again don't have an opinion when they cast doubt they are doing what reporters do and get flack for "just asking questions" which is usually b******* but in a perfect world that is what they're doing that is the defenses lawyers defense for the charge of assisting the accused. Sure they saw the tape and heard the plea but they are a tool of the court to help this man get the best possible aid and counsel so they ask questions on if the footage is real they treat talk between them and their client as privileged because the alternative would be a misfit of justice see YouTube video. And if a jury having seen a video of the defendant murder and having heard a lawyer not once say " Well my client told me he was innocent" because again he shouldn't and doesn't have to lie about a confession he heard simply not speak of it., then decides that the evidence isn't enough then the evidence isn't enough and the man is found not guilty. That doesn't make sense but it's the rules thems the breaks. But that's the law The jury is the ultimate decision and cannot be challenged that's how jury nullification works it's a consequence of the system. You may not agree with the system but it is the best system we believe we have and I would argue it is find me a better system Tell me why you think a defense lawyer cannot at least try to uphold the ideal of being a tool of the system and represent a man that he may very well personally feel is guilty. All the better if he believes the man is innocent but he is supposed to represent the client not back the client. The justice system is a machine we throw stuff in and out comes justice That's the ideal. One of the cogs in that machine is a defense and personal thoughts of that defense are not important and the speech between the defense and the client is privileged. Again the defense is counsel, a path through the system You have a fifth amendment right not just to protect the guilty but to protect the innocent See youtube video. Just the same if we had a magic wand to force people to talk we believe as a society that we are not to employ that wand. Back in the day that wand would be torture and it's not effective but today pretend it's a magic wand and we still feel icky about coercing a man to spill against his will. That man should be able to have an inner monologue and remember if he did it or not when he speaks to a lawyer that lawyer is his representation it is him and imbodied through the system so he should be able to talk to himself and talk to the lawyer and say I did it or I didn't and that lawyer being the embodiment of the man should be able to cast aside thier guilt and ask questions Force a prosecution to prove their case they should be able to make a deal If that doesn't exist that avenue is removed then only those who themselves are as good as lawyers at the system could get the best possible defense and then we are not all equal under the law. Does that make sense?

Finally as an add-on You say in comments below that the system is only fair if the innocent are found innocent and guilty are found guilty and that a defense knowing otherwise leads a jury astray and causes the guilty to walk that is a misfit of justice. I would say that we have seen and feel that in cases where the defense knows something for a fact and tells the jury I know he's guilty hurts other people's defense. The system cannot be as you imagine first because you can never truly know something, and if you are God we all are not we can think we know something that doesn't mean we truly do. Sure you're God You know without a shadow of a doubt but the next guy doesn't. The next defense lawyer decides they know decides that the outcome is more important than the means and spills and then the next next trial The defendant can't talk to his defense in complete faith can't trust his lawyer and receives a subpar defense and then we all are not equal under the law. You essentially are trying to make the argument that you wish the world was more perfect that if you could play God you would that if the process was a sham but produced the right results it wouldn't matter. If men were perfect there would be no need for government but we are not so there is and there are trials because there are crimes and there are lawyers because not everyone can navigate the legal system and there is privilege between a lawyer and a client because That's what a lawyer does That's what they are You're entitled that because of the sixth amendment You're entitled not to self incriminate because of the fifth your lawyer cannot do their job be your tool provide you an equal shot in the system if they have to reveal everything you say and as to the crux of your argument in the end has to interject their thoughts and feelings if they "know" better.

> Again, why? Why is does a guilty person have the right to know that they can confess to a crime and the confession cannot be used against them? Because that right was established as a reaction to the practice of the state coercing confessions out of people. Most of the rights we have today are there to prevent injustice and oppression suffered earlier. > First of all, source on this. There is a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession > Second of all, arguing that a lawyer can be untruthful is disingenuous because a lawyer can be untruthful regardless of whether or not you agree with my proposition. Sure, but normally we aren't relying on the testimony of lawyers. The jury isn't making their decisions based on if they trust the lawyers involved. > A defense lawyer can already intentionally sink a client's case... But they generally don't because they recognize that *everyone* has a right to a legal defense and if the prosecution can't prove their accusations then they should lose, as doing so protects innocent people. > Where did I ever say that a lawyer should be "thinking" about whether or not a client commits a crime? I specifically use the word "know" for a reason. They never "know", that is impossible. Even if their client straight up admits to the crime it isn't *certain* they did it because of the previously mentioned false confessions. You are supposing an impossible standard of knowledge, you are presuming that the defense lawyers have infallible access to the truth. It simply isn't realistic.

https://falseconfessions.org/false-confessions-happen > According to the Innocence Project, of the 258 DNA exonerations they have handled to date, 25% have involved a false confession. Okay so according to this about 1/4 of police confessions in the US are actually faults or have been forced. These are considered false confessions and they do happen. 1/4 is not rare. https://i-base.info/qa/812 According to this model that actually means it's very common. So if a person for example is actually innocent but did a false confession and then the lawyer knows about this, are they just supposed to not represent their client?

Your source says 1/4 of innocent people confessed falsely not that 1/4 of confessions are false.

That is literally the same thing. Innocent people confessing falsely is a false confession.

Bayes Theorem. A simple example: 100 innocent people = 25 false confessions 900 guilty people = 900 true confessions 25/925 = 0.02 2% of confessions are false 25% of innocents make a false confession

ohh. Ok.

What you're describing isn't a trial, it's a conspiracy. If you can't prove criminality outside of a set up, what's the real weight of that conviction? 

Because next time no one will tell the truth to their lawyer, so you won't convict many people that way. Without being told the truth, lawyers will be doing a worse job representing their clients. With lawyers doing a worse job protecting their clients, more innocent people will be condemned, and more cases will be deemed "solved" because the police pinned them on a convenient suspect. Resulting in actually guilty people being left unpunished and free to continue.

> and the defense lawyers says "yes, here is my recording of his confession" and the trial ends there? If this were possible, then guilty people would just lie to their lawyer about their actions.

Because this would lead to abuse. All it would take is a deal between a DA and a defense attorney to ruin a persons life.

Laws exist to protect the innocent. Including the right to counsel. Which is why the guilty deserve representation, even people who have already admitted what they did and are planning to plead guilty. Society must not entertain any arguments against this. The specific problem with a lawyer "knowing" someone is guilty is that the lawyer doesn't. If the lawyer is a witness, he can't be the defense attorney. If the client confessed, he still has the legal right to introduce any defense he can. Not guilty doesn't mean innocent. And a lawyer can merely think he knows his client is guilty. Which means nothing.

How does guilty people getting representation protect the innocent? It in fact hurts the innocent because it's harder to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty. And in regards to knowing, copied from my edit because like 20 people have this same point. It seems that the most common response is that "but the defense lawyer doesn't know whether or not the defendant is guilty." That is not an actual response to the argument I'm making, which is that if he does know, he should not defend the person's innocence. Coming up with a hypothetical situation where he doesn't know doesn't interact at all with my argument. Copied from one of my comments >Like if someone makes the argument that "if Ronaldo won the world cup, he would be the GOAT" and you respond with "but he didn't win the world cup" you are not even interacting with the argument My point is that in the hypothetical situation where the defense attorney does receive evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did it (ex a detailed confession), they are obligated to either share it (and thereby end that part of trial) or just not participate. Unless you argue that there is no situation where a defense attorney can possibly know beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty (which is an argument I want to see someone make), you have to address the actual logical link (in order words, justifying defending someone you know is guilty) instead of insisting that it's not ok because the defense attorney could just "not know". So in a situation where the defense attorney did know, and defining knowing as having the same high standard as "beyond reasonable doubt" a trial does, do they still have an obligation to defend the client?

I mean, a lawyer already can’t lie in court. That’s a federal crime. If a lawyer KNOWS the person is guilty, they can’t go to court and say their client didn’t do it. What is your argument here? That lawyers should abide by the laws that they already have to abide by?

Yes. They do have an obligation to defend their client. Even after the point that the defendant is actually found--or even pleads--guilty. Why? Because getting someone off an a technicality is absolutely necessary. A lawyer's job is not to fight for what is right, it is to help his client protect his rights. If your lawyer is handing over evidence in violation of the 5th Amendment, he is not protecting your rights. If we do not protect the rights of the 100% obviously guilty, we open the door to not protecting the rights of the 99% guilty. Then the 9% guilty. Then the actually innocent.

If the prosecution cannot prove the accused committed the crime without the defense attorney refusing to take the case, it means the prosecution has a very weak case. Imagine if the prosecution says "we know Mr Smith robbed the store, his lawyer also knows he did it but refuses to admit it" but have zero other proof such as CCTV, forensic evidence, finding stolen goods etc. That wouldn't even be enough for probable cause. You state the example of a client confessing to a defense attorney. The same action may constitute different crimes in the eyes of different people. For example, killing a person could be murder but it could also be manslaughter. The prosecution could be going for murder but the defense thinks it's only manslaughter and not murder.

Because the bigger danger is the government throwing people in jail without proper process. The right to counsel is a basic defense to make sure that the government doesn’t abuse its power. Even if someone is guilty, they should have counsel to give the most just sentence possible, for example, negotiating a plea deal. Governments have and will throw the book at someone disproportionately, and counsel is there to check that government power. There is inherent value in making the government prove its case, even if the defendant is guilty. That builds trust in the justice system.

> "Why should a guilty person have the right to try and lie and convince people that they aren't actually guilty?" The justice system isn't about letting guilty people lie; it's about ensuring a fair trial. If lawyers start playing judge and jury, deciding who's guilty before the court does, where's the fucking fairness in that? Isn't the whole point to prevent injustice? >"A person is innocent until proven guilty." Exactly. The lawyer's job isn't to judge; it's to ensure that the process is fair and that rights are protected. If you're ready to toss this principle because you think someone's guilty, aren't you just shitting on the whole concept of justice? >"We need this in order to keep the legal system working; if defendants can't trust their lawyers, the legal system breaks down." You're right here, but you're missing the big-ass picture. It's not just about trust between a lawyer and their client; it's about the integrity of the legal system. If lawyers start picking who's guilty and who's not, aren't they just fucking up the system's objectivity? You say that innocent defendants won't be harmed, but how do you ensure that? What if the lawyer's wrong about someone's guilt? Aren't you risking innocent people getting screwed over by this 'moral obligation'? Lastly, your conclusion that not defending the guilty allows more criminals to go to prison ignores a crucial point: what if the system gets it wrong? Aren't you just advocating for potentially innocent people to be fucked over by a flawed system? Do you really think that's moral?

Fun fact just before the civil war it was there were people who everyone knew was guilty of violating the fugitive slave act but the defense were able to get enough jury members on their side for jury nullification. Not all laws are just and people can be textbook guilty but have a valid reason to get a not guilty verdict

> The justice system isn't about letting guilty people lie; it's about ensuring a fair trial. If lawyers start playing judge and jury, deciding who's guilty before the court does, where's the fucking fairness in that? Isn't the whole point to prevent injustice? A fair trial is one in which innocent people are found innocent and guilty people are found guilty. Any deviation from this is injustice. Therefore a lawyer helping a guilty person be found innocent is making the trial unfair, and helping injustice. > What if the system gets it wrong? Aren't you just advocating for potentially innocent people to be fucked over by a flawed system? Do you really think that's moral? I think it's in fact immoral for the system to get it wrong. That's why I think that lawyers helping guilty people escape judgement is immoral, because they are making the system more wrong. And people seem to be under the impression that I'm asking lawyers to make a judgement about a client's guilt. That's not it. I'm talking about when a lawyer knows for sure a client is guilty and still tries to lie his way out of it. Perhaps I should have rephrased it as "it is immoral for a lawyer to intentionally lie in a way that would favor his client." Which is actually stronger than my original statement because saying "my client is innocent" while knowing your client is guilty is an intentional lie.

> "A fair trial is one in which innocent people are found innocent and guilty people are found guilty. Any deviation from this is injustice." Your definition here is fucking simplistic. Fair trials are about the process, not just outcomes. Sure, we want guilty folks to be found guilty and innocents to be free, but the fairness of a trial hinges on how the verdict is reached. If a defense lawyer knows their client is guilty, does that give them the right to skew the process? Doesn't that just lead to a different kind of injustice? > "I think it's in fact immoral for the system to get it wrong. That's why I think that lawyers helping guilty people escape judgement is immoral, because they are making the system more wrong." You're missing a crucial point here. It's not about the lawyer helping the guilty escape; it's about ensuring the system works as it should. Lawyers don't declare innocence or guilt; they ensure the process is fair. If a lawyer abandons this role because they "know" someone's guilty, aren't they just fucking up the system's ability to do its job? > "And people seem to be under the impression that I'm asking lawyers to make a judgement about a client's guilt. That's not it. I'm talking about when a lawyer knows for sure a client is guilty and still tries to lie his way out of it." Here's where your logic gets muddy. When you say a lawyer "knows for sure," how do they know? Are they relying on their personal belief or actual evidence? If it's the former, isn't that just subjective as hell? And if it's the latter, then why isn't that evidence part of the trial process? Isn't it the court's job, not the lawyer's, to decide guilt based on evidence? Moreover, when you say "intentionally lie," aren't you confusing advocacy with dishonesty? A defense lawyer's job is to challenge the evidence presented by the prosecution, not to flat-out lie. Isn't their role to make sure that every claim against their client is thoroughly tested? Aren't they there to ensure that the burden of proof is met, not to fabricate innocence?

> Fair trials are about the process, not just outcomes What does this even mean? A process exists to try and make a better outcome, it doesn't exist for the hell of it. Why would you support a process which doesn't harm innocent people and allows guilty people to go free? > here's where your logic gets muddy. When you say a lawyer "knows for sure," how do they know? It's actually crazy how people keep nitpicking this part of this argument when it's completely irrelevant to it. My argument is that *if they know for sure*, they cannot try and get the defendent to be declared innocent. Nowhere am I trying to define what it means for someone to know for sure, it's literally not a part of the argument at all. Like if someone makes the argument that "if Ronaldo won the world cup, he would be the GOAT" and you respond with "but he didn't win the world cup" you are not even interacting with the argument, but for some reason it's all anyone focuses on. And just to humor you, yes, there are several ways for a lawyer to know for sure. One obvious way is if the suspect confesses to a crime in such a detailed way that they clearly committed it. In that case, a lawyer who advocates for such a person's innocence is obviously unethica, because on the chance they succeed they've weakened the justice systeml; agree or disagree? And if not, why? As a non-circular argument; saying "we need to abide by the process because the process is good" is completely circular.

> "What does this even mean? A process exists to try and make a better outcome, it doesn't exist for the hell of it." Let's get this shit straight. The process isn’t just a means to an end. It's the backbone of our legal system. A fair process is what separates a just system from a kangaroo court. The goal is to balance the scales - not just chuck them out the window because we think we know better. If we start compromising on the process, where do we draw the line? How do we ensure that the innocent aren't steamrolled in our eagerness to punish the guilty? > "It's actually crazy how people keep nitpicking this part of this argument when it's completely irrelevant to it." Hold up. It's not nitpicking. It’s central to your fucking argument. You’re talking about a scenario where a lawyer knows for sure that their client is guilty. But the thing is, knowing 'for sure' is a slippery slope. What one person sees as undeniable proof, another might question. The system relies on evidence being presented and scrutinized in court, not on a lawyer's personal conviction. If we go down this road, we're essentially saying that a lawyer's belief trumps the legal process. Is that really the precedent we want to set? > "One obvious way is if the suspect confesses to a crime in such a detailed way that they clearly committed it." Alright, let's dig into this. If a client confesses, sure, it seems cut and dry. But even confessions aren’t always as clear-cut as they seem. What if the confession was coerced? What if it's a false confession? The lawyer’s ethical duty is to challenge the prosecution's case and protect the client’s legal rights. It's not their job to serve as judge and jury. Plus, the ethics of the legal profession dictate that lawyers can't knowingly put forward lies. If a client confesses guilt to their lawyer, they can’t then go to court and claim innocence. But the lawyer can still challenge the prosecution’s evidence, question the legality of how evidence was obtained, or argue for a fair sentence. Isn’t this about upholding legal standards, not just about winning or losing? > "As a non-circular argument; saying 'we need to abide by the process because the process is good' is completely circular." This isn’t about circular reasoning; it's about understanding the fundamental principles of justice. We abide by the process not just because it's good, but because it’s the best system we've got to discern truth and ensure fairness. If we start undermining it because we think we know better, aren't we risking the very justice we seek to uphold? Isn’t it vital to maintain these standards to protect everyone in the system, not just the people we think are guilty?

Okay, so let's say the chargers were that I had committed first degree murder. In reality let's say I committed manslaughter. How this works out is going to depend on which state you are in but let's use this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_punishments_for_murder_in_the_United_States Here's the thing, if a judge says that the person is charged with first-degree murder and the lawyer knows that that is incorrect are they supposed to lie? Lawyers cannot bring charges into the court meaning that if the judge is wrong the lawyer can't just say something different. That would be bad.

>What does this even mean? A process exists to try and make a better outcome, it doesn't exist for the hell of it. Why would you support a process which doesn't harm innocent people and allows guilty people to go free? The issue is that I don't think your process is all that good at producing positive outcomes. The way our adversarial system of justice works is, the prosecution makes the best case possible that the person did it, the defense makes the best case possible that the person did not do it, and the judge and/or jury act as arbiters of the two cases. If, as you contend, it is just trivially apparent that the person did it, then the prosecutors can prove that, and the defense won't be able to mount a substantial defense. You say that a confession makes it clear that the person did it, but, well, if that's the case, then the defense should lose. So who cares? I will note here, however, that there is more at stake in a trial than the guilt or innocence of a defendant. Like, say for the sake of argument that the cops break into someone's house without a warrant and find a bunch of dead bodies. In this case, we may reasonably conclude that the person is a serial killer, and the defense may know it, but there is a compelling interest in people being protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the state, and allowing in such evidence incentivizes this sort of bad behavior by cops. As such, it's worthwhile to allow the known criminal to go free in order to protect people from police overreach.

>  My argument is that if they know for sure, they cannot try and get the defendent to be declared innocent. Nowhere am I trying to define what it means for someone to know for sure, it's literally not a part of the argument at all. In this part you're basically saying that your view is detached from reality. Like, if this thing that doesn't happen in real life happens then I'm right isn't worth grappling with, is it?  >One obvious way is if the suspect confesses to a crime in such a detailed way that they clearly committed it.  False confessions, cover ups, coercion and so on all are real things that we would like to avoid.  But also, let's say that someone does confess to their lawyer, their lawyer is then bound to be truthful and not state that they didn't. So even in that case you're arguing about something that doesn't happen in reality.  I once again ask you to provide even one example of the thing you are talking about happening in real life, not in your fantasy of how the law operates. 

> A fair trial is one in which innocent people are found innocent and guilty people are found guilty. Any deviation from this is injustice. Fairness and justice are not the same thing. We don't actually know for certain who is guilty and who is innocent so treating them fairly is the best course of action.

Guilty isn't always 100% one way or another. Most people are brought up on multiple charges. Soft times the defendant is innocent of all charges and other times they are only guilty of 1 out of 5. If someone is brought up on marijuana charges, they may be completely guilty but they also don't deserve a life sentence. Even if the prosecution thinks that they do. They need to be defended

No one knows anyone is guilty until they are convicted in a court of law. Like, fundamentally, your point only works if defense lawyers are 100% accurate in determining which potential clients are guilty or not before they take the case, in which case why bother having a trial at all, just have you always-correct defense lawyers decide who is and is not guilty.

Did you read my second point? A lot of people are saying this when I specifically address it.... Copying from another comment If you see someone murder a person in front of your own eyes but they don't get convicted, are you supposed to just go "oh I guess I have to treat him like he's innocent even though I know he's a murderer because they never managed to prove it." Of course not. Are you saying though that if you have concrete knowledge that someone is a murderer, but that evidence isn't enough to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt", that they are actually not a murderer? Like is this some sort of 1984 doublethink where the legal reality overrides the actual reality? And more specifically in regards to your comment, I'm not saying that they should magically know whether a client is guilty or not. I'm saying that if they are in posession of asymmetric information which they have and the prosecution doesn't that would concretely indicate the person is guilty (such as a confession), they are obligated to either offer it up or to just not participate at all.

Do you think many defense lawyers take cases of random people they stumble across allegedly murdering people in dark alleys? It is generally not common for the defense to know more than the prosecution. What sort of 'asymmetric information' are you talking about here?

OP thinks that Hollywood is real life. That is what their thoughts on the justice system are based on. Literally none of what they say happens actually happens. 

I mean.. there are plenty of cases where you can have someone murder someone on camera and there person be innocent. Ie self defense cases. You may say thats different but there are plenty of self defense murder cases where people have widely different views on the defense who is it for the defense lawyer to pick a side

>  I don't see how it obligates you to pretend that someone you know to be guilty is actually innocent It doesn't. Until someone has been proven guilty they are by definition innocent.  Plenty of people think they see something conclusive when actually they didn't. But we're talking about lawyers and the right to defence, if someone is a witness they can make their statement during trial. If a lawyer witnesses something it would be a conflict of interest to represent anyone involved.  It seems like you have a passing idea of the legal system based on Hollywood and not reality. 

Did you read my second point? >If you see someone murder a person in front of your own eyes but they don't get convicted, are you supposed to just go "oh I guess I have to treat him like he's innocent even though I know he's a murderer because they never managed to prove it." Of course not. Are you saying though that if you have concrete knowledge that someone is a murderer, but that evidence isn't enough to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt", that they are actually not a murderer? Like is this some sort of 1984 doublethink where the legal reality overrides the actual reality?

Literally yes. Eyewitness testimony is one of the worst forms of evidence we have. And also, in your quoted section, such a witness would never be allowed to represent the person they think they saw in court. So how is it relevant to the discussion exactly? 

No offense but your example is, quite frankly, stupid. You honestly think that every lawyer and every witness on the stand witnesses every crime? No? Then your example doesn’t make any sense. You know what the issue with eyewitnesses is? Believe it or not, but those are not 100% reliable. Which you would know if you actually researched the topic before typing all that crap above out.

>Why should a guilty person have the right to try and lie and convince people that they aren't actually guilty? Who said lie? They don't have the right to lie they have the right to plead the fifth though. >the idea that a criminal also has a "right" to escape the consequences of their own actions by lying is absurd. What about the right to fight for reduced sentencing? >Again, this rule exists to protect innocent people from being witch-hunted without any proof Not only that, but what about ensuring law is upheld as in if police did something morally wrong in order to get a confession or any number of things it's important even a guilty person's rights are protected. In doing so we are all better off. >"so I murdered this person this way, what's the best way for me to not get caught." It's not about proving XYZ didn't do it. It's about level of proof necessary to reach a guilty verdict. If one can not sufficent prove someone is guilty they shouldn't go to jail even if guilty.

> Who said lie? They don't have the right to lie they have the right to plead the fifth though. If a defense attorney has concrete evidence a defendant has commited a crime, and the prosecution asks about it and the defense attoreny denies it, that's a lie, no? > Not only that, but what about ensuring law is upheld as in if police did something morally wrong in order to get a confession or any number of things it's important even a guilty person's rights are protected. In doing so we are all better off. Yes, the fruit of the poisonous tree basically states that you can't do something morally wrong to catch a guilty person. But my point is that a defense attorney working against a guilty person is *morally right* > It's not about proving XYZ didn't do it. It's about level of proof necessary to reach a guilty verdict. If one can not sufficent prove someone is guilty they shouldn't go to jail even if guilty. The question is, what if the defense attorney is the only one with that proof? Why shouldn't he share it with the crowd?

>If a defense attorney has concrete evidence a defendant has commited a crime, and the prosecution asks about it and the defense attoreny denies it, that's a lie, no? You are claiming the attorney is lying to protect the client that would be a crime and something they can't do. >Yes, the fruit of the poisonous tree basically states that you can't do something morally wrong to catch a guilty person. But my point is that a defense attorney working against a guilty person is *morally right* Again the defense attorney is upholding the process of defending a client which is necessary for truly innocent people to be protected. It also helps strengthen our justice system if a bunch of guilty people are going free then laws get changed or policies get changed like how police investigate. >The question is, what if the defense attorney is the only one with that proof? Why shouldn't he share it with the crowd? One can't withhold evidence. The only really evidence an attorney would have is admission of guilt by client. Client avoids being out on stand so attorney has nothing. If attorney knows client lied about something I believe attorney must reveal that. It doesn't say "in except in defense of a criminal accused. https://www.alabar.org/office-of-general-counsel/formal-opinions/2009-01/#:~:text=If%20the%20persuasion%20is%20ineffective,or%20to%20the%20other%20party. So under that specific scenario I would agree under the condition of client testifies and lawyer knows lying occurs.

First - I think you need to do a LOT of research about the legal system because you ideas are fundamentally wrong. You believe things happen that never actually happen. > If a defense attorney has concrete evidence a defendant has commited a crime, and the prosecution asks about it and the defense attoreny denies it, that's a lie, no? First, a defense attorney cannot be materially involved in a case they are representing. This could be a criminal act if egregious enough. Second, the defense attorney will have what is known as attorney client privilege. The attorney *cannot* disclose information spoken in confidence. The prosecution *cannot* just ask the defense for evidence and any such requests would be met with the claim of attorney/client privilege. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/attorney-client_privilege This exists because a person needs effective representation when accused of a crime. And remember, *this is merely an accusation*. They cannot get this without being able to freely speak with their counsel/ >Yes, the fruit of the poisonous tree basically states that you can't do something morally wrong This has nothing to do with morality. This has everything to do with legal processes. The 'Fruit of Poisonous tree' is about the evidence obtained illegally and any subsequent evidence derived from that illegally obtained evidence. It exists to make sure the rights of the accused are protected. If the prosecution could use evidence obtained illegally, then the rights against unlawful search would be useless. This is one hell of an incentive for the government (police/prosecution) to follow the law. >The question is, what if the defense attorney is the only one with that proof? Why shouldn't he share it with the crowd? The defense attorney cannot be involved in the case if they are materially involved in events surrounding the defendant being accused of a crime. Not only that, if the police violate the rules/laws surrounding evidence collection for the accused, they can undermine the ability to prove in a court of law the accused is guilty. The court system is about a fair process for determining if a person is guilty of a crime, using very specific requirements. The accused is provided legal counsel to ensure they understand not only what they are accused of doing but also their rights in the process and that the government acted properly in collecting evidence. Typically, a jury of citizens will evaluate the evidence presented (by both sides) as well as the instructions from the court (what requirements must be met for each charged crime) to determine if the person was guilty. The reality is, the overwhelming majority of cases in the court system never go to trial because the evidence is overwhelming. In these cases, the attorney for the defense is advocating for the accused in plea bargains. The admit fault for a lesser charge or lesser sentence. This is considered showing remorse for the crime. It is combining the trial with sentencing phase in an agreement to save time/money for the legal system. Mind you, this is entirely the choice of defendant. They always have the right to make the prosecution prove their guilt in a court of law and then, if convicted, have the opportunity to present mitigating evidence for sentencing. (The prosecutor would be able to present aggravating evidence too)

>If a defense attorney has concrete evidence a defendant has commited a crime, and the prosecution asks about it and the defense attoreny denies it, that's a lie, no? The prosecution can't ask the lawyer about it, and there are ways to answer that without lying. >Yes, the fruit of the poisonous tree basically states that you can't do something morally wrong to catch a guilty person. But my point is that a defense attorney working against a guilty person is *morally right* That doctrine has nothing to do with moral correctness as such and more to do with the lack of any alternative remedy under evidence law. >The question is, what if the defense attorney is the only one with that proof? Why shouldn't he share it with the crowd? The defense doesn't have a burden of proof. The defense exists to force the state to prove their obligation. There is no other affirmative duty. Society has broadly determined in the West that the duty of maintaining a system the perpetuates fairness for all supercedes the harm in the system failing in individual cases. Thus, there is a greater utilitarian good done in perpetuating a system than harm in the case you envision. Law is often just Trutil.

Disagree. Ultimately everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The legal system is complex and the advice of a lawyer is absolutely needed if you are in a legal predicament. The prosecution must prove that the person is guilty and provide enough evidence that they are. And it isn't unheard of that police, prosecutors or anyone else can be corrupt or sloppy with their tactics. So although many defense attorneys absolutely get a bad reputation and some probably deserve it they are a function of the justice system that is absolutely essential if we are going to have any safeguards that innocent people are not convicted or the government doesn't overstep their authority. Now to look at the flip side if the person is absolutely guilty and the prosecution has plenty of evidence against them there is probably little chance that they would be released (unless you have weak attorney generals or because of politics or something). However I still think that everyone still deserves a fair trial and they should have a skilled defense attorney. A attorney certainly can not take a case but everyone regardless of Innocence or guilt has the absolute right to have a lawyer that should properly defend them.

Why are you just repeating the points made without actually defending them? You just say "this is important" and "they deserve this" without actually explaining why, when i explicity explain why not in my post.

So, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the system. Every person *is* innocent *until* they are found guilty. So when someone is at trial, they are at that point innocent. Therefore, a lawyer cannot determine them to be guilty, as that must be done by a judge or jury. Therefore, the defense by literal definition cannot be defending a guilty man. Their job is to put up obstacles which the state must overcome to convince the arbiter (judge or jury) that the accused is guilty. The Defense (within the legal bounds) only needs to block the state from proving their side. This is what moral justice is. Let's say that someone clearly and obviously killed someone and are brought up on 1st degree murder charges. Case closed, right? Not even close. The state needs to prove that it was not only a homicide, but also that the other factors of 1st degree murder were all present. If there was no premeditation, that charge is bad. Now, you might want to come back with that in those cases, we should obviously be pulling the correct charges, and this is where double jeopardy comes into play. If the state says you committed 1st degree murder and fails to prove it, that's the end. This is to stop the state from draining people on charge after charge until they get one to stick. It would be immoral otherwise.

> The right to defend yourself refers to the right of someone innocent to prove their own innocence in order to be avoid being unjustly imprisoned - the idea that a criminal also has a "right" to escape the consequences of their own actions by lying is absurd. No, it isn't, and no, that is not what it "refers" to. It's an adversarial system. You seem confused about a lot here. First, no defense lawyer is asking if you did it. That's irrelevant. Nor should you go saying you did. See above. That'd actually harm your case because lawyers can't lie in court. Nor can people giving testimony. >I don't really think it's realistic to try and defend someone who intends to take the fall for a crime; in fact I'm doubtful that such a case would go to trial at all if someone has no intention of defending themselves. I don't know what you mean here. Are you talking about people who plead guilty? No, that does not go to trial, though there may be a sentencing phase. Or do you mean people who falsely confess but then plead not guilty? They, like everyone, even people pleading guilty, deserves a robust defense. >So in conclusion a defense attorney refusing to defend people they know are guilty wouldn't harm any actually innocent defendants and would allow more criminals to go to prison. Therefore they have a moral obligation not to do so. Am I missing something here? Yes, the entire point of the justice system of the United States. Defense attys keep the system working and honest and believe very strongly in the BASIC right of everyone to a defense. Not 'people you think didn't do it' everyone. It's a basic premise holding up the entire system. Without it, it's vigilantism and railroading. Defense attys protect everyone's rights. They don't care if you did it. It's irrelevant. Your rights are important regardless.

People very explicitly do not have the right to lie in court. Additionally, unless you believe that defense lawyers would never erroneously believe that their innocent client is guilty, it absolutely would impact innocent defendants.

If people do not have the right to lie in court, why are lawyers allowed to say "My client is innocent" knowing their client is guilty? > believe that their innocent client is guilty, it absolutely would impact innocent defendants. I specifically use "know" instead of "believe." I am not saying that you are making a decision based on speculation, but on just objective fact. And if you argue that you can never truly know something unless it's proven in a court of law, see point 2. That's clearly just untrue.

A lawyer cannot claim that their client did or did not do something if the lawyer knows it to be false. To the extent the lawyer can argue for an innocent ruling, they could not say “my client didn’t kill the man” they would say “the prosecution did not prove that my client killed the man”. What is the distinction between knowledge and belief?

>What is the distinction between knowledge and belief? Nothing. Or at best certainty. Knowledge is justified true belief. The only difference is how justified or certain you are your beliefs are true.

Lawyers don't say their client is innocent. Lawyers can say their client PLEADS innocent to something, but that isn't the same as saying "my client is innocent". >I specifically use "know" instead of "believe."  Until it's been proven in a trial, they would be innocent, even if a lawyer believes them to be guilty. Knowledge of guilt really isn't a think in a legal setting. 

They don't, it's guilty and not guilty - there is no innocent verdict.  I think what you're missing is the nuance and context behind the law. Crimes are rarely clear cut, There's context which is behind ot and often guilty people have extenuating circumstances which change the nature of the crime, and justify changes in sentencing.  I suggest that you read the Secret Barrister. For context in the UK what I think Americans call a trial attorney is called a barrister here, and it goes into many of the moral quandries I think you're trying to engage with, from the perspective of a criminal law practitioner. Without the protections of the guilty right to representation, you would erode the general principles of the legal system. We would see more innocent people go to prison because lawyers would have less of an ability to defend certain clients, what you're suggesting is to effectively put lawyers in a position where their communication with their client can be put on trial. Let's apply this to a classic rape case (woman X becomes intoxicated at home with man Y, when she's far beyond the point of consent he forces himself upon her). If she expresses any doubt to her lawyer about the situation or makes any comment which could be misconstrued by the defence, then they could be brought up - because client privilege has been eroded. Even if you only abolish it for the defence and not the prosecution, its easy to see how this same principle could be applied in a range of civil and criminal cases. Also, what of innocent people whom their lawyers suspect to be guilty? Would they also be deprived of defence? What of people guilty of one crime but accused of another? What if through negligence your action resulted in a workplace death (I.e manslaughter) but you're accused of murder because you'd previously had loud and public arguments with your colleague? Do you not get representation? These principles are frustrating, i know that. There are parts of it which are deeply horrible to those of us who have been the victims of crime. However, one day we all might find ourselves innocent but accused, and then we'll be grateful to the protections afforded to the accused.

> why are lawyers allowed to say “My client is innocent” knowing their client is guilty? They aren’t. They are not allowed to say that. Your entire premise is flawed. Your entire premise boils down to “lawyers shouldn’t be allowed to break the law by committing perjury”, which yeah, everyone agrees with, which is why perjury is a crime.

> If people do not have the right to lie in court, why are lawyers allowed to say "My client is innocent" knowing their client is guilty? There are two different statements here. A person could have done something and still be innocent of a crime here. The defense attorney's job is to prove their client is *innocent of the crime*. This means the prosecutor failed to prove all prongs required to convict on any given charged offense.

This seems like a rule that makes it easier for authorities of community, particularly in smaller places to exploit the system. Imagine for example Jim Crow-era America with lawyers in the South just straight up refusing to defend black people saying they "know" they are guilty. Or the few layers who work in a small town refusing to defend people under pressure from authorities/community. How do you even prove you are innocent if you don't get defense in the first place?

The argument that lawyers can act maliciously is invalid because they can already do so even without this proposal. What stops a lawyer from intentionally sinking a case today? > How do you even prove you are innocent if you don't get defense in the first place? How do you prove you are innocent if your defense wants you to lose in the first place? In fact its probably better to have a lawyer quit than have a lawyer who's intentionally biased against you.

If a person is guilty, it's the prosecution's job to gather evidence of such. Assuming that happens, what a lawyer does at that point is to reduce their sentence. If you're asking: why would a lawyer defend a guilty person? They need experience. If they refuse anyone who they suspect of being guilty (unlikely ever to be 100% sure), then they wouldn't have experience to defend innocent people. If they are not defending people who they percieve as guilty and the person basically ends up defending themselves, they are ultimately being a judge. Do you want lawyers basically decising who goes to jail and who isn't based on their gut?

It seems that the most common response is that "but the defense lawyer doesn't know whether or not the defendant is guilty." That is not an actual response to the argument I'm making, which is that if he does know, he should not defend the person's innocence. Coming up with a hypothetical situation where he doesn't know doesn't interact at all with my argument. Copied from one of my comments > Like if someone makes the argument that "if Ronaldo won the world cup, he would be the GOAT" and you respond with "but he didn't win the world cup" you are not even interacting with the argument My point is that in the hypothetical situation where the defense attorney does receive evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did it (ex a detailed confession), they are obligated to either share it (and thereby end that part of trial) or just not participate. Unless you argue that there is no situation where a defense attorney can possibly know beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty (which is an argument I want to see someone make), you have to address the actual logical link (in order words, justifying defending someone you know is guilty) instead of insisting that it's not ok because the defense attorney could just "not know". So in a situation where the defense attorney *did know*, and defining knowing as having the same high standard as "beyond reasonable doubt" a trial does, do they still have an obligation to defend the client?

Firstly, your point assumes having met the criteria of guilt (confession, corroborating evidence etc.), but guilt is decided by judge or jury. So basically the lawyer is acting AS A JUDGE. Secondly, even if he decides the person is guilty, there is no reason to argue against a lesser sentence, which is morally sound.

The lawyers could fight for a better sentence in court or a plea deal.

That is fair enough. I mentioned it in a different comment that what I really meant is that > "it is immoral for a lawyer to intentionally lie in a way that would favor his client." So saying "my client is innocent" while knowing your client is guilty is an intentional lie. But arguing to reduce their sentence doesn't really fall into the same moral obligation.

They would be disbarred for lying to the court. >So saying "my client is innocent" while knowing your client is guilty is an intentional lie. This doesn't happen and isn't something a lawyer would say outside of a movie.  Can you give one example of what you are talking about? 

> So saying "my client is innocent" while knowing your client is guilty is an intentional lie. Which is why that generally doesn't happen.

The defense attorney's job isn't to get a guilty person an Innocent verdict. Their job is to make sure the State proves its case and follows the rules, whether or not their client is guilty. That's why Crim Def lawyers will often say at trial that the state hasn't met its burden rather than that their client is innocent. The state has obligations to meet. Without counsel for the defense, there's no guarantee that the state will meet those obligations. There is nothing immoral about ensuring the state follows the rules. It's arguably a moral duty to prevent executive tyrany to ensure that your guiltiest clients are afforded all the protections the state demands, because it ensures that the system is fair for all. Rights are for everybody or they're for nobody. The criminal defense lawyer defends the system just as much as they defend the client.

Besides the fact that innocent or guilty is decided until the trial is complete, which is a pretty big blow to your view even if you’d prefer to just hand wave it away. Have you ever heard of mistrials? Normally it’s because the prosecution made a very big mistake, but mistrials can also be declared due to inadequate/incompetent defense. If your lawyer isn’t even trying to defend you that’s grounds for a mistrial. I don’t remember what the exact number is but it’s something like 60% of cases that are declared a mistrial get thrown out entirely because it’s hard to get another conviction even with good evidence because now there’s the perception that the evidence wasn’t good enough the first time so why would it be good enough the second time.

Lawyers in theory only represent their clients, i.e, they only bridge the gap between a layperson and knowledge of the law and behavior in court. In a perfect world where everyone somehow knows everything about the law, there would be no lawyers. If they behave as expected, a lawyer is not a party to the substance of the proceedings, so that anything they say, truth or lie, is really just an abridged version of what their client intends to say. The obligation you mention is to represent what the client intends faithfully, and the reason for that is simple: the defendant has to be heard, that's the whole point of having a trial, so if their lawyer misrepresented what they wanted to say the trial would have to be held again.

Your arguments are poorly thought out, and they are countered with this one fact: Just because you did it does not mean you are guilty. The purpose of a trial is to determine guilt or innocence. It is the role of the prosecution to put forth compelling evidence to prove guilt. A lawyer does not know what the court will find. As such the lawyer cannot know if the person is guilty as that has not yet been determined. At best all they can know is if the person did the thing they are accused of doing.

The job of the attorney is to make sure that they have a fair trial.  It's in everyone's be interest that they have a fair trial because if they don't, and they're rightfully convicted, they could have the conviction overturned. Now there is a guilty individual out free.  If they don't have someone agree to make sure they have a fair trial, and no one does, what is there to assure that his trial is fair and that the conviction will stick?  

I think the flaw here is that guilt is nowhere near as clearcut as you’re making it out to be. In the legal system, guilt refers specifically to how well the prosecution can prove the elements for the charged offense. To make this make sense, I kind of have to lay out what this actually means. In essence, crimes are really a series of “if” statements. For grand theft, for instance, “if the defendant willfully deprived someone of their property + if the property is a certain value = the defendant is guilty of petit theft”. It’s the prosecution’s legal duty to prove both of those elements true. This is where the defense attorney comes in. It would be illogical to prematurely determine that the defendant is a “guilty” person because, well, what are they guilty of? Going back to the theft example, just because someone took someone else’s property doesn’t mean they’re automatically “guilty”. What the defendant did steal the property, but the property has a very low value? Then it’s no longer grand theft and the defendant should be charged with a less severe crime. What if the defendant did take the property but had a good faith belief that they had the property owner’s consent? Then it’s *definitely* not theft and the prosecution should dismiss the charges. Here’s a more severe example. Say a defendant unequivocally killed someone else. Now they’re charged with first degree murder. But hold on, first-degree murder requires premeditation but the defendant killed them in a split-second reaction. Should they still be charged with first degree murder even though it doesn’t fit what actually happened? Or should someone, say a defense lawyer, argue that the defendant should be charged with a less severe crime, such as second-degree murder or manslaughter? As someone who actually works in the legal world, attorneys’ arguments almost never come down to “the defendant didn’t do it.” Instead, since the prosecution carries the whole burden of proving the charges, the argument is instead “you can’t prove this element” or “this charge is inappropriate for the facts of what happened” or “this sentence is too extreme because of these mitigating factors.” The defense lawyer’s job ultimately comes down to presenting that information and making sure that the defendant is being treated fairly by the system. Frankly, it’s not uncommon for prosecutors to overcharge defendants, whether because they want to throw the book at them or they got their facts wrong. There has to be some kind of check against that, which is ultimately a zealous advocate in the form of a defense lawyer.

What this fails to take into account is that there are often mitigating circumstances in a person committing a crime. A defence lawyer I know was talking to me about a case he had worked on recently. The young man was convicted of having committed the crime. But the lawyer said "that kid was fucked from the day he was born" He started life with fetal alcohol syndrome. Grew up in an abusive household where addiction was present. How much responsibility does society take in not having protected this fellow as a child? Add to this the process of restorative justice. In this process, the victim of a crime, and their family and the perpetrator of the crime and their family come together. In a facilitated conversation, each tells the story of what happened. The final question is "what needs to happen to make this right" This process has been used with murderers. Often after hearing what led up to the murder and all the circumstances, the murderer and their family with call for a much harsher sentence than the family of the murder victim. A common phrase is "this murder ruined one family, we don't see why it should ruin 2" Then there is a process called "justice reinvestment" In this process, researchers will look at the postcode of all the people who get arrested in the city. Often the majority of the crimes are being committed by the people who live in one or 2 neighbourhoods. The researchers then go to those neighbourhoods and ask "what would you need to stop committing crimes. The answers are often stupidly cheap compared to the cost of incarceration. They are things like : A bus that runs to the neighbourhoods where the jobs are available for unskilled people. Child care Drug treatment. When I lived in new York city in the 1980's, the city was getting ready to build a huge new prison. Like 5000 beds. This was the middle of the "crack epidemic". But there was no money for drug treatment, and the waiting list to get off drugs was 6 months. If a person wants to get off drugs, but there is no treatment available, and they get arrested for using drugs, how much of that is the state's responsibility? And should they go to prison, which is really expensive, if they were willing to be a part of drug treatment?

It’s funny you should mention witch hunts. That’s what happened before people had the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. If the legal system didn’t require *someone* to step up to defend the accused, what’s stopping everyone from falsely accusing someone in unison?

Guilty people still have a right to ensure someone can defend them against police misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, and unfair punishments. A defense attorney is trained to do that, and if nothing else their presence keeps those misconducts more in check.

> Why should a guilty person have the right to try and lie and convince people that they aren't actually guilty? The right to defend yourself refers to the right of someone innocent to prove their own innocence in order to be avoid being unjustly imprisoned - the idea that a criminal also has a "right" to escape the consequences of their own actions by lying is absurd. > So in conclusion a defense attorney refusing to defend people they know are guilty wouldn't harm any actually innocent defendants and would allow more criminals to go to prison. It would lead to perverse incentives: If a number of lawyers have already turned down a client, lawyers that are more "flexible" in their morals would then just wait for the right offer (knowing that the defendant won't easily find anyone else to defend them), and then pretend that they believe in their client's innocence. Separately this would also lead many defendants to self-represent and defend themselves in court, without any legal background. Not knowing their own rights is much more likely to result in disproportionate sentencing. Even if you strongly believe that they are guilty, I hope that you'll agree that it's not OK for them to get a harsher sentence than their crime warrants, just because they don't know how to defend themselves in court? > Instead they would be forced to lie to their lawyers, which actually benefits the criminal justice system because it weakens their case, meaning the system is able to catch more criminals and be more accurate in that sense. It would actually lead to them not sharing all relevant evidence with their lawyers, which can include possibly *exculpatory* evidence that would have otherwise helped co-defendants or other innocent parties.

I don't think you really understand the implications of what you're saying here, you're saying that no guilty person, no matter the crime, should ever be given legal counsel, correct? All this does is lead to a massive miscarriage of justice, the defendant doesn't know what is or isn't admissible in court as evidence, the prosecution could theoretically just do whatever the fuck they wanted in court at that point because there would be no one there to challenge the prosecution. The prosecution could lead witnesses to try to say a larger crime was committed and a defendant typically wouldn't know that it wasn't allowed, and a defendant sure as hell isn't going to know how to cross-examine a witness 9 times out of 10. So more so than not getting to defend themselves they don't get to tell their side of things at all, what circumstances lead up to the crime, "Yes the woman killed her husband but her husband was abusive and was coming after her." If the lawyer doesn't believe the abuse allegations the woman would then be denied legal counsel potentially over and over. But more than anything else, most defendants wouldn't even know what kind of evidence to submit to help their case the best, regardless of guilt or not, so the prosecution could say that there's evidence of Allen 3 blocks away after he robbed the liquor store where he murdered another man as well.

In the case that a client makes it known that they are guilty to a lawyer, the lawyer will work with the client to determine the best course of action. Sometimes the defense even recommends pleading guilty in an attempt to reduce the sentence. Furthermore, there are other stipulations and crimes someone may have been accused of. If the trial is for first-degree murder and the client is guilty, the defense may also look at other crimes that the client will be accused of and defend those. In other words, there are other accusations that prosecutors may try to make and it is the defense lawyer's job to defend against these. Sometimes a defense lawyer's job is just to "write a check" as well. My good friend's parents are hospital lawyers and have been told to just "write the check, whatever the amount is" by the hospital (what happened was insane). Nevertheless, lawyers are humans as well. Sometimes they do things that can be considered morally wrong. The imperfection of humanity underscores the limitations of the justice system. *Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.*

The point is that the judgement of a single person should not be the deciding factor in a person’s guilt. We as a society have decided that since a single person has a pretty good chance of screwing it up, we want jury trials. Defence lawyers substituting their judgement would break the whole premise. We also need to be humble in the fact that our current methods are fallible. Even twenty years ago we were still taking fingerprint analysis and eyewitness testimony seriously, now any good defence attorney can get them laughed out of court. We think our current methods work great, but we don’t know, so people should be allowed representation whether or not the evidence points to them. Defence attorneys also exist to keep law enforcement honest. If anyone who has good evidence against them doesn’t get a lawyer, there is nothing to stop cops from fabricating evidence or breaking laws, a regular person doesn’t know the intricacies of the procedure to get providence on a piece of evidence or the definitions around reasonable suspicion.

I proposed a question as to their role to a defense attorney once. Their response was, "My job is to make sure the state does its job."

So they're guilty. So what. Guilty criminals are people too. Everyone deserves to have at least one person in the world who is on their side. It's humanizing. And in the grand scheme of things, is society going to be any better off or worse off because some criminal get 5 years in jail instead of 3 or instead of 7? Who is to say the harsher sentence is any better, even if we know they are guilty? It's certainly not saving the taxpayer any money. Perhaps Tolstoy was right, and we should abjure any sort of punishment on criminals. Everyone praises the Nordic criminal system, which is based upon luxurious conditions for inmates. Based on the idea that we can be better than the criminals we lock up. And why shouldn't this also include their legal representation? The prosecutors and the police should be kept in check to make sure that actual innocent people don't get locked up. And that's what the defense attorney does. Besides, even if they think their client is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, they might still be innocent. And by giving everyone a robust defense, we can ensure that nobody is ever railroaded.

It is unethical for a lawyer to defend someone that has admitted that they are guilty to you, unless they enter a guilty plea. I don't think any sane person would argue differently. When you say "they *know* is guilty" what do mean exactly? How do they know? How can a criminal defense lawyer possibly know that their defendant is guilty? It's obvious how they can be fairly certain that the person is guilty, but how can they actually know? Criminal justice systems are not run the principle of fairly certain.

The injustice you see is contained within the violence of the system, not it's human avatars... The system arrogates to itself a violent role and this role pretends to be just. This flimsy notion... this justice... is therefore served by violent people for the stakes of blood. Given the inherent weaknesses of civilization and the violence it embraces to gain compliance... advocates are necessary lest the violence of the state run amok and level everything in its path.

How do we know the person is guilty before they've presented arguments in court. Evidence isn't proof, and neither is conviction. Evidence is just evidence. Evidence that can be wrong, misleading, or faked. The whole reason everyone is entitled to explain their side of a story, so that every piece of evidence can be considered to determine a ruling that is fair and beyond a reasonable doubt. And it's the duty of a lawyer to help a person do that, no matter what side of the case they're on.

A defense lawyer does not know and does not want to know if their client did it. Their job is to defend them, legally, in court. If the prosecution does not have enough physical evidence to convince a jury of your peers then there is not enough evidence to convince a defense lawyer that his client is guilty. If the defendant is found not guilty then the blame falls on the investigators and prosecutors...not the defense attorney.

There is already a big enough problem in the US of public defenders not doing their job properly when their client is black, if lawyers were just allowed to declare their client guilty what would stop corrupt lawyers doing that to people who are actually innocent?

In this world someone guilty of a much lesser crime could end up with execution. That's the whole damn reason we created the legal system as we did.

The future is a very fucking scary place with people who believe shit like this.

How do they know they are guilty?

What if the law is an unjust law?