Comments on: Should we be selective? Part II http://apublicdefender.com/2007/06/28/should-we-be-selective-part-ii/ Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:43:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Snitching: Here we go again | a public defender http://apublicdefender.com/2007/06/28/should-we-be-selective-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-7610 Snitching: Here we go again | a public defender Fri, 02 Nov 2007 21:00:46 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/06/28/should-we-be-selective-part-ii/#comment-7610 [...] Instead of rehashing everything said in the last day (and last few months), I’ll ask this of those that will not represent snitches: What do you mean by [...] [...] Instead of rehashing everything said in the last day (and last few months), I’ll ask this of those that will not represent snitches: What do you mean by [...]

]]> By: Selective representation | a public defender http://apublicdefender.com/2007/06/28/should-we-be-selective-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-5431 Selective representation | a public defender Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:37:09 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/06/28/should-we-be-selective-part-ii/#comment-5431 [...] arbitrarily, is doing the client a disservice. I’ve written about this before (here and here) and my thoughts haven’t changed. What’s the difference between declining to represent [...] [...] arbitrarily, is doing the client a disservice. I’ve written about this before (here and here) and my thoughts haven’t changed. What’s the difference between declining to represent [...]

]]> By: Gideon http://apublicdefender.com/2007/06/28/should-we-be-selective-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-2396 Gideon Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:21:24 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/06/28/should-we-be-selective-part-ii/#comment-2396 [quote comment="2386"]I think there is a distinction. A “snitch” in “snitching” hasn’t done anything criminal. He has strategic decision. You might conclude that actively participating in snitching (as lawyer are often asked to do) damages society as a whole. Or, you might conclude that it is bad strategy (which includes “bad for your client’s life). <b>Someone accused of child molesting has been accused of doing things that a criminal. Depending on your view of the evidence, you might conclude that 1) he has, indeed, done something bad; and 2) you can’t represent him.</b> These are different questions people need to ask themselves. Personally, I would represent people cooperating with the government (and deciding, on a case-by-case basis whether they could be protected and whether they would do any better not cooperating – which is often the case), and people accused of child molestation.[/quote] Sure, but isn't that what criminal defense lawyers do? Defend people accused of doing something bad? My point merely was that while I can understand where individual facts of a case might lead someone to decide that they are unable to represent that particular defendant, it is quite something else to exclude a whole class of defendants based on some moral stand. [quote comment="2386"]I think there is a distinction.

A “snitch” in “snitching” hasn’t done anything criminal. He has strategic decision. You might conclude that actively participating in snitching (as lawyer are often asked to do) damages society as a whole. Or, you might conclude that it is bad strategy (which includes “bad for your client’s life).

Someone accused of child molesting has been accused of doing things that a criminal. Depending on your view of the evidence, you might conclude that 1) he has, indeed, done something bad; and 2) you can’t represent him.

These are different questions people need to ask themselves. Personally, I would represent people cooperating with the government (and deciding, on a case-by-case basis whether they could be protected and whether they would do any better not cooperating – which is often the case), and people accused of child molestation.[/quote]
Sure, but isn’t that what criminal defense lawyers do? Defend people accused of doing something bad? My point merely was that while I can understand where individual facts of a case might lead someone to decide that they are unable to represent that particular defendant, it is quite something else to exclude a whole class of defendants based on some moral stand.

]]> By: S.cotus http://apublicdefender.com/2007/06/28/should-we-be-selective-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-2386 S.cotus Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:26:39 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/06/28/should-we-be-selective-part-ii/#comment-2386 I think there is a distinction. A “snitch” in “snitching” hasn’t done anything criminal. He has strategic decision. You might conclude that actively participating in snitching (as lawyer are often asked to do) damages society as a whole. Or, you might conclude that it is bad strategy (which includes “bad for your client’s life). Someone accused of child molesting has been accused of doing things that a criminal. Depending on your view of the evidence, you might conclude that 1) he has, indeed, done something bad; and 2) you can’t represent him. These are different questions people need to ask themselves. Personally, I would represent people cooperating with the government (and deciding, on a case-by-case basis whether they could be protected and whether they would do any better not cooperating – which is often the case), and people accused of child molestation. I think there is a distinction.

A “snitch” in “snitching” hasn’t done anything criminal. He has strategic decision. You might conclude that actively participating in snitching (as lawyer are often asked to do) damages society as a whole. Or, you might conclude that it is bad strategy (which includes “bad for your client’s life).

Someone accused of child molesting has been accused of doing things that a criminal. Depending on your view of the evidence, you might conclude that 1) he has, indeed, done something bad; and 2) you can’t represent him.

These are different questions people need to ask themselves. Personally, I would represent people cooperating with the government (and deciding, on a case-by-case basis whether they could be protected and whether they would do any better not cooperating – which is often the case), and people accused of child molestation.

]]>