Rick Horowitz said on December 05, 2009  

I've written about this in a way that might make some people think I would disagree that defense attorneys seek justice. However, that's not an entirely accurate picture. My "real" view -- or should I just say my "unqualified" view -- is more like yours, with one exception.

I disagree that "[d]efense attorneys advocate for short[-]term injustice...."

Of course, this gets us into possibly-semantic quibbles over "the meaning of 'justice.'"

Nevertheless, I agree with pretty much everything else you said here. Defense attorneys have an assigned role to play in the system. That role is not to decide that someone is guilty and then, having decided that, refuse to vigorously defend them. (For the record, I know you didn't say it was; I'm laying out what I think.) The role is to make sure, as I've written extensively on my blog, that the State's case is run through the crucible of adversarial testing.

Unless defense attorneys always put in the hard work of fulfilling their roles, there is no way the system, as a whole, fulfills its role.

And, while the power of the State demands the balance that comes when prosecutors consciously aim for justice, Justice is the reason for the existence of the system, not of any specific lawyer or class of lawyer.

 Orlando Attorney Shane Fischer, P.A. said on December 06, 2009  

What a great way to say it "Defense attorneys advocate for short term injustice". Your post was inspiring. Your average person sometimes just can't understand why an attorney would defend a person who has done terrible things, but this blog post would go a long way to making it clear.

 Joshua said on December 09, 2009  

I agree with most, if not everything, in this post. I do think that it can largely be argued with based on a person’s subjective definition of “justice.” I don’t recall where I first came across the quote, nor have I read the novel from which it came, but it seems true and fitting to many arguments about justice and law and right and wrong. The quote goes, “Justice? You get justice in the next world; in this world you have the law.”

I would think this would be a strong statement to be made by any criminal defense attorney who finds himself face to face with someone who doesn’t understand how he can stand in court for someone who he knows, or even suspects, is guilty of a crime. Every defendant is entitled to full protection and procedures afforded by the law. In the case of a criminal defendant whose case is dismissed or who is found not guilty, perhaps blame would be better directed not towards the defense attorney who revealed an error in police procedure, or established reasonable doubt, but rather directed at the prosecution and police who failed to adhere to legal procedures, or failed to present a case strong enough to remove reasonable doubt from a jury's mind.

My hat’s off to the defense attorneys. I’m sure it’s a difficult job, and one that few people, aside from the accused, fully appreciate.

 Disability Insurance said on December 10, 2009  

Great article, very well written and informative. I think that defending a reviled offender is somewhat noble. As long as the attorney isn't taking the case as a publicity stunt, they are obviously taking a case where the odds are not in there favor. Putting one's neck on the line like that is noble in itself.