Although I might object to the term “good liar,” the idea is sound.
5 Comments
Why? I thought you agreed with me that there is such a thing as a good lawyer…. 😉
You know, I just recently learned what the difference is between the British “barrister” and “solicitor”. Apparently in Britain, Canada, Australia, and such places, it’s actually illegal for a lawyer to knowingly lie to the court, so if you’re accused of something, you hire two lawyers. One of them you can be perfectly frank with — whether you actually did it, for instance. The other talks to the first, rather than to you; he has no idea whether you did it or not, and will actually represent you to the court.
In the US, there’s no such law because it really doesn’t matter whether the defense lawyer knows that the defendant is innocent or guilty. As few non-lawyers realize, the defense lawyer is not actually there to defend the defendant — his job is merely to make the prosecutor prove his case against the defendant. It’s only coincidental that if the prosecutor can’t do so, the defendant is considered innocent.
Interesting differences. I’m curious how the law is set up in other countries — ones that actually run by the rule of law at least, I can easily guess how it goes in countries that are run by the rule of “the strongest is always right.” 🙂
Acrtually, typically the lawyer’s job is to negotiate with the Prosecutor without it ever going to trial. “The art of the deal” as my Dad the tax law professor disparagingly calls what most lawyers (but not usually tax lawyers) do.
Dad only went to court once in the 20 years he served as a lawyer, most of the time he merely advised his client, usually a corporation, on how to obey the (very complex American tax) laws so they wouldn’t wind up in trouble with the IRS. 🙂 He said that typically if a tax law client is in trouble enough to need to go to tax court with the IRS as their prosecution, they are really f—ed and aren’t very desirable as a client. 🙂
That may be what lawyers actually do, but it’s not what the position was set up for. And presumably it isn’t what they did 225 years ago, when the design was first created. 🙂
And I can certainly understand your father’s position on such clients.
Well, because of the overworked American court system, if every case went to trial instead of plea-bargaining, you’d have such delays in getting a fair trial that that would be unconstitutional in the US, not to mention the increased costs to taxpayers of going to trial. So I’m not really sure that plea-bargaining is such a bad idea, it’s a practical reality for what the system has to deal with.
Besides, plea-bargaining gets rid of your objection of guilty clients with lawyers who say their client’s innocent, a plea-bargain means the lawyer and client saying they’re guilty of something. 🙂
Why? I thought you agreed with me that there is such a thing as a good lawyer…. 😉
You know, I just recently learned what the difference is between the British “barrister” and “solicitor”. Apparently in Britain, Canada, Australia, and such places, it’s actually illegal for a lawyer to knowingly lie to the court, so if you’re accused of something, you hire two lawyers. One of them you can be perfectly frank with — whether you actually did it, for instance. The other talks to the first, rather than to you; he has no idea whether you did it or not, and will actually represent you to the court.
In the US, there’s no such law because it really doesn’t matter whether the defense lawyer knows that the defendant is innocent or guilty. As few non-lawyers realize, the defense lawyer is not actually there to defend the defendant — his job is merely to make the prosecutor prove his case against the defendant. It’s only coincidental that if the prosecutor can’t do so, the defendant is considered innocent.
Interesting differences. I’m curious how the law is set up in other countries — ones that actually run by the rule of law at least, I can easily guess how it goes in countries that are run by the rule of “the strongest is always right.” 🙂
Acrtually, typically the lawyer’s job is to negotiate with the Prosecutor without it ever going to trial. “The art of the deal” as my Dad the tax law professor disparagingly calls what most lawyers (but not usually tax lawyers) do.
Dad only went to court once in the 20 years he served as a lawyer, most of the time he merely advised his client, usually a corporation, on how to obey the (very complex American tax) laws so they wouldn’t wind up in trouble with the IRS. 🙂 He said that typically if a tax law client is in trouble enough to need to go to tax court with the IRS as their prosecution, they are really f—ed and aren’t very desirable as a client. 🙂
That may be what lawyers actually do, but it’s not what the position was set up for. And presumably it isn’t what they did 225 years ago, when the design was first created. 🙂
And I can certainly understand your father’s position on such clients.
Well, because of the overworked American court system, if every case went to trial instead of plea-bargaining, you’d have such delays in getting a fair trial that that would be unconstitutional in the US, not to mention the increased costs to taxpayers of going to trial. So I’m not really sure that plea-bargaining is such a bad idea, it’s a practical reality for what the system has to deal with.
Besides, plea-bargaining gets rid of your objection of guilty clients with lawyers who say their client’s innocent, a plea-bargain means the lawyer and client saying they’re guilty of something. 🙂