While I think these arguments are sufficient on their own (and am unimpressed with Michael’s arguments), there is one I think is missing:
‘Guilty’ can encapsulate a wide range of verdicts for a wide variety of crimes, and even a client who is guilty of something is not necessarily guilty of everything or deserving of maximal punishment.
A client who is unambiguously guilty of manslaughter can still deserve representation to defend them against a charge of murder.
This is also an area that requires expert support: most non-lawyers treat the phrases ‘robbing a house’ and ‘burgling a house’ interchangeably, but the first is a much more serious crime. Even ‘how should I address the judge to not offend him unnecessarily and worsen my sentence’ is something that a lawyer can legitimately help even a totally guilty client with.
Exactly this. Your client is charged with 9 murders. You, followed by all other lawyers, refuse to defend them because they are so obviously guilty. They go to prison. But, they only killed 8 people. The real culprit in the 9th case goes free.
I think Michael’s response to that is that he doesn’t oppose that. He only opposes a lawyer who tries to prevent their client from getting a punishment that the lawyer believes would be justified. From his article:
It is not wrong per se to represent guilty clients. A lawyer may represent a factually guilty client for the purpose of preventing unjust punishments or rights-violations. What is unethical is to represent a person who you know committed a crime that was really wrong and really deserves to be punished, and to attempt to stop that person from getting the punishment he deserves.
While I think these arguments are sufficient on their own (and am unimpressed with Michael’s arguments), there is one I think is missing:
‘Guilty’ can encapsulate a wide range of verdicts for a wide variety of crimes, and even a client who is guilty of something is not necessarily guilty of everything or deserving of maximal punishment.
A client who is unambiguously guilty of manslaughter can still deserve representation to defend them against a charge of murder.
This is also an area that requires expert support: most non-lawyers treat the phrases ‘robbing a house’ and ‘burgling a house’ interchangeably, but the first is a much more serious crime. Even ‘how should I address the judge to not offend him unnecessarily and worsen my sentence’ is something that a lawyer can legitimately help even a totally guilty client with.
Exactly this. Your client is charged with 9 murders. You, followed by all other lawyers, refuse to defend them because they are so obviously guilty. They go to prison. But, they only killed 8 people. The real culprit in the 9th case goes free.
I think Michael’s response to that is that he doesn’t oppose that. He only opposes a lawyer who tries to prevent their client from getting a punishment that the lawyer believes would be justified. From his article: