Does it matter at all, that sometimes the people they defend are actually INNOCENT?

Discuss.

And sometimes the people they defend are guilty. I don't vilify defense lawyers, I just think that like prosecutors, there are quite a few scumbags in the profession.

And I realize that this is off-topic, but I'd really like to see the the thread you closed re-opened. With the exception of Rona and Brian, it was actually going rather well and I'd like to see where the discussion of Zionism would go.

I'm not sure it's defense lawyers so much, as personal injury lawyers (with the ambulance-chaser rep).

I think a large part of the reason defense lawyers get such a bum rap is because so many high-profile lawyers get wrapped up in "How do I get my client off?" Rather than, "How can I demonstrate the prosecution's case is faulty?" It becomes less a search for the truth, which is what a trial is supposed to be concerned with (theoretically, anyway).

So people like O.J. go free not because of the prosecution's faulty case (which it was) but because of smoke and mirrors (Columbian drug lords) and misdirection (racist cops). It's a feeling that the system doesn't work... or a distrust that the system won't work for them.

On top of that is that for all the talk we make about being fair... we all really have preconceived notions about a client's guilt or innocence. Look at Michael Jackson... how many of us truly believe he's innocent?

Thanks, Darth. I was trying to think of the proper way to phrase exactly that.