What's the "scummiest" profession?

They are not defending the guilty person, they are defending the justice system. But more to the point, it is not up, and is never up to, the lawyer to decide guilt. That is for the judge. A lawyer may have personal feelings and opinions, but they are not judge, jury and executioner. All defendants have legal rights to representation, and to not do so would to infringe on these, would undermine the justice system and allow for show trials. I think everyone agrees that defence lawyers are necessary for political prisoners, for those who are strongly likely to be innocent, to those who may be facing a biased and racist court. By voiding someone's right to a fair trial and legal rwpresentation, you are also allowing for those future people who do not deserve punishment, or not as much punishment, to not have legal representation. Lawyers who believe their client is guilty usually encourages them to plea guilty. If they can't, they will sometimes say 'my client asked me to say X' which is a kind of signal saying that what they're saying is ridiculous. If a client actively confesses, that does not and never will confirm guilt, many people have confessed due to perceived pressure, particularly from society and family, or as a result of poor mental health, fear, believing they're safer with a guilty plea and so on, so a confession alone should not be evidence of guilt. Lawyers can, rarely, transfer cases, in cases where, due to a client confession, they may be prejudiced or otherwise unable to do the job.

As well as this, being guilty is not be all and end all. Should someone who assaulted their former bully, who immediately repented and has apologised, who comes from an abusive home where they were a witness and victim of violence, and had anger and aggression issues, but was showing signs of improvement after being removed, be treated the same way as someone of a stable background, with a good job and generally good life, who assaulted their partner because they didn't clean the house properly? I would argue no. But a defence lawyer must argue this in court. Were they provoked? Were there extenuating circumstances? Are they likely to reoffend? Are they sorry? I would argue these are all crucial to sentencing, and that is for a defence lawyer to argue.

/r/AskReddit Thread Parent