the defense attorney normally knows whether or not his client committed the crime...However, since everyone is, indeed, entitled to a fair trial, is is the OBLIGATION of the defense to insure that a fair trial is conducted. We don't need vigilante justice...a few guilty do get off (O.J.Simpson for example) But, I assure you that if you were the accused, guilty or not, you'd want a fair trial
If I murdered and got caught I’d expect what I deserved. If I killed in self-defense it would be different of course.
We are splitting hairs here. We both know what kind of situation I’m talking about and the cases where the trial should be simply a formality. Far too often that formality turns into just what we are doing now parsing words and equivocating over points of procedure looking for loopholes. Points of procedure that invoke technicalities that let guilty people walk free or with reduced sentences and allow them to continue to terrorize society. It has happened too many times and the crime still demands justice. Some dogs have no place in society. They are usually clearly apparent.
We disagree. It is the soft on crime and the “fair trial” meme that has gotten us where we are. It is true that anything carried to the extreme is extreme but we’ve lost balance. We forgot about the Yes, NO or No Excuse and instead have allowed fabricated excuses to become the norm.
I’m glad I’m not the defense attorney who has the OBLIGATION to defend someone clearly guilty. I’d have to kill myself in shame. Some jobs just are not worth having.