I understand lawyers defending people who claim innocence. I do NOT understand a human being who tries to get someone free who ADMITS guilt.
People who defend the admittedly guilty aren’t interested in justice-IMO- they are engaging in a mental ‘game’. Who is the slickest attorney, who can manipulate the law the best. Also- high-profile cases like heinous murder are great for attention.
Somewhere in there, the actual crime is IRRELEVANT.
I don’t know how any attorney, who defends someone he KNOWS is guilty, can live with themselves.
Maybe the ‘system’ should be changed so the ADMITTEDLY guilty condemn themselves-bypassing the expenses incurred defending them against facts. My opinion.
>> Maybe the ‘system’ should be changed so the ADMITTEDLY
>> guilty condemn themselves-bypassing the expenses incurred >> defending them against facts. My opinion.
I understand your emotions. However, there is a reason for our system and the due process.
There was a time and a place in history where “ADMITTEDLY guilty condemned themselves” to death, spectacularly, in front of a staged “judges” and court “audience”.
They condemned themselves because they were coerced to by mental physical torture, and or torture, or threat of torture to their family members.
That place was Stalin’s USSR.
Which is why we have a due process for even the most heinous, confessed criminals.