I'm not sure your hyperbole serves your case any better than O'Reilly's hyperbole serves his.
Sophistry should not be substituted for a "vigorous defense." Yet that is the case in much of our judicial system. Deconstructionism and postmodern concepts of truth (or lack thereof) have turned our "adversarial" judicial system into a game of verbal gymnastics which has only tangential connections to reality and truth. And not a lot to do with justice as a concept, only as a definition.
Thank you. I can see you've spent some time in the courts. Me too. You're right.
I think defense attorneys should do whatever legal measures it takes to get their clients off.The problem is elsewhere. An education system that doesn't teach people how to think critically, and to look beyond defense (and prosecution) hyperbole, a disordered system of social values that spends more subsidizing indolence, bastardy, and drug abuse than it does on enforcing the law, a series of guilt-ridden legal precedents which tilt the balance in favor of the defendant, so that juries end up being made up of socialist idiots, rather than thoughtful citizens.
WE are victims of our prosperity. We don't see how safety and security are related to freedom, we despise and discount the idea of personal responsibility, we think the duty of moral judgment is a crime of being judgmental and hypocritical. "Who are we too judge?" we ask.
The fault, I think, is not that the defense attorneys go flat out to win an acquittal. It's that juries allow them to get away with it.