How do defense attorneys defend defending an plainly guilty defendant?

I would imagine that is immensely difficult for them. How would they feel if they succesfully get an aquittal for a human being who they feel is guilty, or if they help release them on some technicality approaching "the fruit of the poison tree" one.

Are they just in it for the money? I would suppose at first they start off very romantic, but after they gain experience and see what the legal system is like, they lately look for rich drug dealer clients. Or insurance companies and stuff. That movie with matt damon comes to mind, and the devils urge.

What do you guys think?
During the OJ Simpson trial, one of his attornies made a remark at a party that "He was/is guilty".
They knew.
Under the Constitution, one is assumed innocent until proven otherwise by trial.
As we can see, errors and/or incompetence by the prosecution can absolve a guilty individual.

Are they just in it for the money? Welllll, they adjectives got millions from OJ.
Defense attorneys do not want guilty people dispossessed any more than non-defense attorneys do. They are simply making sure the cops have done their job and the rights given to the accuse in the US Constitution are being upheld (ie, speedy trial, no off the record search and siezure).

Please know that many of the defense attorneys surrounded by this country are public defenders and don't make much money. Their clients are poor (there are income boundaries to qualifying for a public defender) and usually of color.

Every individual deserves a defense, regardless of whether they are guilty or not. It's not about "getting the guilty off". It's in the order of upholding the Constitution.

I think the concept of an individual "getting off on a technicality" is grossly misstated. I don't reflect on it's a technicality if the cops don't follow the Constitution.
Our country is base on "innocent until proven guilty", and everyone is entitled to representation. If there were no defense attorneys at hand would be no representation for any defendants.

Yes, they might get off a guilty client or two, but better to set a guilty man free than transport an innocent man to prison.

The defense attorney represents those who have been accuse and who are innocent as well -- if you were accuse, and you knew you didn't do it - wouldn't you want the attorney to pull out ever trick surrounded by the book to get you home to your family?
Guilty or innocent we have the right to a defense. Somebody have to provide it, whether paid or appointed. It's part of living contained by a free country. It's not that much different then the state prosecuting an innocent man to clear a case. And that happen also.

2. Some are so PC that they would to some extent see a childmolester, rapist or killer go free if the cops trademark the slightest mistake. This group should ahve to live with the people they seize off.
Matt Damon was not contained by that, he was in the Rainmaker. Keanue Reeves be in Devil's Advocate along with Al Pacino...

Also, it is our system. Without defense attorneys, we would never know if the system be fair. There is no 'obviously guilty'... A person cannot be guilty until it is proven. And we own a whole mess of people (police, attorney's, lab technicians) that will try to prove someone guilty.
They usually do not ask if you did it or not...ignorance is bliss...they will ask you what happened and then build your shield from what you tell them...if they find that there is a deeply strong case against you, they will usually suggest you plea out...which is usually the best case since you can plea for a spot on punsihment...i.e...a person is video taped bloodbath another person...pleaing second degree murder will receive you less time than being convicted of 1st amount or capital murder...
I agree beside what you said. I think they start out thinking they want to defend innocent citizens and save the world by always upholding sprite. Some may always keep these ideals but the money bug bites most of them and that become more important. I think they own to be alot like doctors and kind of remove themselves emotionally within order to defend undoubtedly guilty people or prosecute people that are innocent.
As a technical thing, there is no such thing as an "unmistakably guilty" defendant, because a guilty defendant is one whom the state has proven has committed a crime beyond a passable doubt, under the procedures which we have come to think through, over a period of some 500 years, are necessary to assure that trials are tolerant.

A defense attorney's job is to make sure that the affairs of state obeys its own rules. Those rules are numerous and complex, and it takes years of study and experience to know them adjectives and to apply them correctly. You wouldn't expect a sick person to perform his own surgery, and you cannot expect any individual, guilty or innocent, to negotiate the mine field of the law alone.

In over 95% of cases, the defense attorney's livelihood is to determine what charge and punishment is fair for the individual defendant, and to assist the defendant in entering guilty plea. It is powerfully known that the police and prosecutors frequently "overcharge" cases, so that the defendant may be guilty of something, but not of the crime charged. It is the defense attorney's job to generate sure that the "punishment fits the crime."

Only about 5% of cases go to trial. It is not the attorney's chore to then abandon his client, but is, again, to assue that the trial is balanced, that all of the government's evidence is tested, that the defendant gets a just chance to tell his side of the story (when he have one to tell), that the jurors understand what their job is, and to engender sure that nobody is punished unless the rules and standards are obeyed.

There are other systems. In China, the job of the "defense" attorney is to assist the organization. In some systems, a defendant is require to prove his innocence. In some systems, the government can simply accuse you of a crime and lock you up lacking a lawyer or a trial. Frighteningly, that system exists now contained by the United States if the President decides you are an unlawful enemy combatant, whether you are a citizen or not. With that exception, I resembling our system better.

It may be surprising, but there really are not that many rich drug dealer to go around. Most private defense attorneys spend most of their time defending people accuse of drunk driving, battery, petty theft, and other minor crimes. People near the money to hire a lawyer commit very few key crimes. The people who commit more serioius offenses are generally represented by appointed counsel.

While it may change elsewhere, Public Defenders in California seem to be a pretty impracticable and committed group of lawyers. We are, after all, the ONLY screen there is between the citizen and the government which is trying to lock him up. It is the defense attorney who protects and defend YOUR constitutional rights. We're pretty proud of that. Source(s): 30 years as a criminal defense attorney, and still idealistic.
An "obviously guilty" defendant may be wrongly prosecuted (look at Bob Woffenden's work on miscarriages of justice: near are many cases where "everybody knows" the guy is guilty. Only he's not; it's a political satchel or the police have otherwise faked evidence, used venal "experts" approaching the notorious Sir Roy Meadows who convinced judges and jury that ALL parents of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome babies were GUILTY OF MURDER if a second baby died (doctors presently know that congenital defects may be involved).)

Many times there are lawful reasons why a person can't be convicted. Maybe the directive is defective; maybe the evidence was fake or irregularly obtained.

Only in totalitarian countries do "defense lawyers" truly help the state convict. If you don't have a robust defense after the conviction has no meaning. As an example: Moussaoui "defended" himself, and admit to crimes he probably never committed. He now is serving life lacking parole in the Supermax prison. If he'd never opened his mouth and if he'd have a decent defense he'd be doing a few years time at most.

Defenders of white collar criminals, drug barons, organized crime data and serious tax cheats make a fabulous living. Most real-life defender are in the middle class like you, merely doing a job. Some, like Lynne Stewart… really are within sympathy with their clients. Others, like Ramsay Clark… do it out of a human rights conviction that poltiical enemy deserve the best defense possible. There's no profit in such work, only brickbats from the broad public who don't understand the concept of the ADVERSARIAL LEGAL SYSTEM that the US inherited from England. (In civil ruling systems like France and Germany and Japan and much of the rest of the world the judge take an active part within the trial -- both prosecution and defense. Not in the UK or in America.)

I am doing research very soon into Nazi law and Nazi courts. You wouldn't want such a legal system contained by America: "obviously guilty" meant nil more than someone was out of sympathy with Hitler, and the cost for that could be a quick death sentence minus appeal. Even if the accusation was false and motivated by spite. Even if the charge came from one's own child, who had be brainwashed in school.
I wonder how they sleep at darkness. Do they get a sense of pride to know they beat the system? And put a murderer or a criminal back out on our streets to hurt more people.

I've see how (with an expensive attorney) a man can total another guys car in a DUI and near fancy manuveurs from the attorney, get it dropped to reckless driving. I be shocked. The poor felow who was injured and lost his car a moment ago sat there within court with a sad stare...close to he was minimized and the DUI was in a minute just a traffic incident, thanks to the priveleged few. That guy saw no sprite. What he saw was MONEY in exploit.
yes, they are in effect. Whores. they dont really vigilance what they have to do to get it.
Every character is presumed innocent and entitled to a Defense Lawyer. The Lawyer must have the best interest of his client at heart and must defend him to the best of his ability. He has to look at this as a job he have to do, he can not get emotionally involved next to his clients guilt or innocence, or he would be ineffective. It is up to the Court and the Jury to make the decision of guilt or innocence.
They are scum who are only concerned nearly $$$$$. Why do you think our laws are so complex?
Everyone one is innocent until prov en guilty, it is every lawyer duty to give their client the best defense they can, wether or not they are guilty or not. They get remunerated to defend people,so the press you asked is irrelevant.
Attorneys nick an oath when they pass the bar.

"...that you will rescheduling no man for lucre or malice, but will conduct yourself in the department of an attorney within the courts according to the best of your knowledge and discretion, and next to all good fidelity, as powerfully as to the courts, as to your clients."

Lawyers believe that everyone has a chance to be represented. If they know that their client is guilty consequently they will suggest to do a "plea bargain". It is up to the client to make that decision though.

If the client desires to go to court and plea for a lesser sentence after the attorney has no choice but to do what thier client wishes.

Related Questions:
  • What do you infer of Fritzl's defense legal representative?
  • How to be a defense attorney and prepare and argument?
  • Can I achieve a return from a California defense advocate that I rewarded complete upfront?
  • Who is a honourable defense attorney for attempted murder?
  • How would you find a defense attorney?