It is true that EVERYONE is entitled to a good defense? Including murderers? Why actively defend someone who is guilty of a crime? Isn't that immoral?

Yes.

Yes.

Ever heard of the concept of "presumed innocence"?  

Because the prosecutor is a crazed maniac who desperately wants to fry the defendant, or put him away forever, or whatever the judge will let him get away with. And the lawyers don't care what's what, they are only playing a game to advertise what great lawyers they are. And the judge doesn't care, he only wants to make everybody think they really need his services to play their games.

The defendant is the only one in the room who is not paid to be there, and the only one who bets any significant part of his life on the outcome.

The presumption of innocence is the basis of the law. It is up to the prosecution to prove guilt. The defence do not have to prove innocence; only that there is reasonable doubt. I would not want to live in a society that did not do it that way.

 If you KNOW beyond a shadow of  doubt that someone is guilty of murder do you still presume innocence? How is that possible?  Thank you for your reply HarryD! :)

I am not sure how it works in the United States, though I doubt if it's different, but in Britain, if a lawyer knows his client to be guilty, then he must excuse himself from the case. That is a clearly defined part of the ethics of the profession. A new lawyer, taking over, may have his suspicions about why his predecessor stepped aside, but as long as he doesn't actually know his client is guilty, he may represent him.
One more point, Rosie. Unless we actually saw a crime take place, none of us ever know for certain what happened, either before, during or after the trial. The criminal justice system can never be perfect, and does the best it can, but if we hold to certain fundamental concepts, such as the presumption of innocence, then we can hold our heads up. As they say, it is better if a thousand guilty men go free, than if one innocent man is jailed for a crime he did not commit.
While I am on the subject, I might add that I was never happy with the way our government overturned the principal of double jeopardy, where you cannot be tried twice for the same crime, on the basis that, as we have DNA testing these days, we can now prove that people did crimes we could not prove they did before. Double jeopardy never had anything to do with not being able to prove that some people did certain crimes. Once again, it was about the presumption of innocence. If you put someone on trial twice for the same crime, you are not presuming that he is innocent, but instead, are dragging him back to court as many times as it takes to get a conviction. The removal of double jeopardy was scandalous, and most of the public showed no concern about it, probably because they have very little understanding of the justice system.

I agree with you. If new evidence comes in that would change the outcome I think ignoring it  is evil. I was thinking of a client who  tells his/her lawyer he  committed the crime. Confessing his/her sins to the attorney much as one confesses sins to a priest. I mean why would anyone confess to a crime he/she didn't commit? So the attorney would simply withdraw from the case. Does the lawyer need permission from the court to do so? The lawyer moves on KNOWING the client is guilty. So the lawyer is off the hook and not obligated to tell someone? That seems evil to me too HarryD. It does. Thank you for your thoughtful and informative analysis in responsed to my question m'dear! :)

Yes in our system everyone is entitled to a defense. Even if they plead guilty they still need representation in the sentencing stage of the trial.
And they are not considered guilty until a verdict is ordered by the judge.

Have you heard about the child rapist Hillary defended? She implied that the child victim was interested in the old pervert to get him acquitted. Very disgusting case.

Hello Rosie:

Any lawyer worth his salt WON'T ask if their client is guilty, and if his client starts to confess, a GOOD lawyer will put his fingers in his ears and go la, la, la, la, la, la.....

The REASON a lawyer DOES that, is NOT because he wants to protect guilty people, as you suggest..  It's so that when he represents YOU, YOU have a shot at winning.. 

excon

I still don't get it. You have to put ethics and honor and morality on a shelf  to knowingly represent a guilty person. I think that is a lot to give up just to WIN. Thank you for your reply excon and Happy Wednesday!  :)

So they are guilty until proven innocent and only those deemed truly innocent (by whom exactly?) deserve to have expert legal representation?

Good God !....They are not guilty until proven guilty  in a court of Law. Therefore, they are entitled to a legal defense. What country do you reside in ?

You might want to read the US Constitution, Rosie !

Hello again, Rosie:

The key word is "knowingly".  I agree..  That's why I said that MOST lawyers don't wanna know, and will go out of their way NOT to know..

excon

Because a person isn't actually guilty of a crime until they have been convicted of said crime by a jury of their peers.

And yes, everyone is entitled to due process.

It's about having a fair trial. Even if they are guilty, sentencing needs to be done with consideration for the specific circumstances and any mitigating factors, and to determine such things as was the person considered to be of 'diminished responsibility'. They need to establish the degree of murder/manslaughter, and to establish whether they need to go to prison or to a psychiatric/secure facility. etc. 

Clinton did not imply  anything of the sort... In the 1975 case, when Clinton was a law clerk and acting as a court appointed defense lawyer, a  court appointed Psychologist who spent hours interviewing the child arrived at that conclusion... Clinton, being a court appointed lawyer had a legal duty to introduce the evidence obtained from the psychologists report.... To quash the evidence obtained by the court would be contempt of court and illegal on her part. !  I'm sure Breitbart and Rush probably tell it otherwise. ( surprise).

I'm afraid you misunderstood the point I was making, Rosie. I was not suggesting it was a good thing to overturn double jeopardy. Just because new evidence, be it DNA or anything else, becomes available, is no reason to put someone on trial twice for the same crime. You just should not keep dragging people back to court time after time again until you get a conviction. What sort of society does that make us?
As for lawyers excusing themselves from cases if they believe their client is guilty, there may be bad lawyers who don't, but that is what they are supposed to do.
I don't know about doing anything to get a conviction. That is why we have juries; so that, ultimately, cases are determined by objective people.

So when new evidence becomes available that PROVES an innocent person was incarcerated unjustly and a guilty person walks free that information ought to be ignored? Or at least the guilty party is free and clear? Maybe the innocent person who spent 30 years in jail for a crime he/she did not commit might be released but the guilty party gets away with it and everyone knows? I dunno HarryD. That is NOT OK with me . So we disagree. Thank you for your reply and Happy Friday to thee :)

Oh. Okey dokey sweetie. .Thanks for the clarifcation excon! :) That kinda sounds to me like       knowing without admitting it is okay as long as the words aren't said specifically. I guess it's legal but do you think it's moral/ethical? Just wonderin'?

Thank you for your reply stars and Happy Friday. A fair trial means that justice is served and truth prevails. How often does that happen I wonder? :(

Thank you for your reply FNR and Happy Friday! :)