People that defend scumbags like Doob

I look at it this way. Let's say I'm a surgeon and I'm scheduled to do a heart transplant. I somehow come to find out the patient scheduled to receive the new heart is an inmate at the state penitentiary serving a life sentence for murdering his own child. Now, as a human being, everything within me says that this man does not deserve to live and I should feel no desire to help him go on living. Nonetheless, as a physician, I know it is not my entitlement to decide whose life I will save and whose I won't, because that's not part of the oath I took as a doctor, it's not what I'm here for. Should I feel badly about myself because I go ahead and do my job as I am supposed to and give the man the operation he needs to go on living? I don't see why I should. It may be my belief as a person that this is man is unworthy of life, but as a doctor, that's not my personal call to make. If society chooses to give this man what's coming to him in the form of the death penalty, well good for society, but as a doctor, my job is to save every life I can to the best of my ability, regardless of whether those people deserve to be saved or not. It's the same with defense attorneys, they are here to protect every citizen's entitlement to due process unconditionally. They stand for the accused to protect the innocent. In this country, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and until a verdict is handed down, everyone deserves the best defense possible. Would it be better if we didn't have defense attorneys at all? If every law school graduate declined to pursue a career in criminal defense because he/she couldn't live with the possibility of having to help a guilty person get off? Suppose every defense attorney just said "no" and quit? Or had the right to pick and choose who he/she would defend or wouldn't? Or had the right to not defend each and every defendant to the best of his/her ability because of personal bias? What kind of a justice system would we have then? How many innocent lives would be destroyed over that? Not every accused person is in fact guilty. Unfortunately, being a professional means putting your own prejudices aside to do your job. Don't get me wrong, it's an atrocity that we live in a world where scumbags as guilty as sin can get away with their crimes, but that's the fault of an imperfect legal system and an unjust world, not the fault of defense attorneys who are doing their jobs. Now there are most definitely lawyers who do circumvent the law and, in those cases, should feel badly about themselves and be held accountable for their actions, but in the case in this movie, as much as Robert Doob deserved to go down for what he did, the only thing his lawyer was guilty of was defending her client to the best of her ability. Unfortunately, in this life, our morals don't always perfectly coincide with our responsibilities.

" I would like to know how that lawyer felt in the film after the second rape. Maybe she wouldn't have bothered to defend him again, thinking, "I'm not going to clean up his messes anymore." "


I wouldn't count on that. Doob's attorney was most likely, a public defender who was appointed to him by the state. Just like prosecutors, they don't have the right to pick and choose their cases. Doob was obviously indigent, and I don't see him being able to afford to hire an attorney of choice. The man lived in a crap hole in a shoddy neighborhood and couldn't have been making much more than minimum wage, which he, undoubtedly, spent whatever he did make on booze, cigarettes, and drugs. To hire a private attorney, you have to have money, or at least reasonable credit, thus the miranda right of , "if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed..." Of course it's true lawyers of any kind ultimately seek to advance their careers. How do you think they stay in business? That's the nature of any kind of work, particularly when you are basically self employed. You have to keep making money and building clientele if you want to keep doing what you do. Lawyers certainly have a reputation for being lying, shady businessmen (and women), but it's not necessarily "deceiving the jury" just because a defense lawyer gets a client acquitted or gets a case thrown out. Defense attorneys are only here to establish reasonable doubt and assure that all processes of the legal system that affect their clients are adhered to according to what is written in law. They are not legally allowed to make any statements that are factually false. For example, a lawyer cannot say in court "this man is innocent" if he knows that to be untrue, he can say the prosecution has not met their burden proof or has not presented sufficient evidence to prove guilt, but he cannot say " my client didn't do it" if he knows otherwise. Certainly lawyers HAVE done such things, but I don't see where that was the case with Doob's attorney. All she did was lay out the cold hard facts, and that was, that the prosecution messed up, pure and simple. It wasn't at all just, but that's the way it is, the system is flawed like that. If anybody was to blame for this atrocity, it was the prosecution, they didn't have their I's dotted and their T's crossed. Otherwise, Doob would have either gone to trial and probably been convicted, or he would have taken a plea and gone back to prison. It's the responsibility of the prosecution to accurately present the case and establish guilt, if they make a mistake or otherwise misrepresent their case, that's their fault, not the defense's fault. All the defense attorney did was her job. I'm sure, of course, she wouldn't have felt good about the subsequent crime Doob committed, but that doesn't in any way put the blame on her. It could also be argued that it was the judge's fault that Doob was set free because he ultimately had the final say in dismissing the case. He could have theoretically, denied the defense's request to suppress the evidence, and, subsequently, dismiss the case, but, like the defense, he had to do his job and uphold the law. The blame ultimately lies with the system as whole, not the judge or the lawyers, not as long as they are acting within the letter of the law.

Exactly, Red. The plot did seem to contradict itself, though. The cops and courts weren't too upset about Julie's rape and murder...they certainly wouldn't be very upset about a good for nothing s**tbag like Robert Doob. I doubt Karen would have spent the rest of her life behind bars (considering), but she undoubtably would have spent time. That FBI agent was not warning her against it to be evil/condescending. Their job is simply to enforce the law. If you read between the lines, she was giving her a way to do it without getting in trouble. Yes, it's a screwy system, but we must have lines drawn somewhere. If we opened the door to allow civilians to kill to justify a murder, you think it'd stop there? Not on your life. It would continue to open doors, to allow killing for anything...soon people would be killed just for looking at somebody cross-eyed. A civilized society would never last if we did that. Again, the system is far from perfect. But it's there to protect the rights of citizens. Every single individual. No matter who it is.

Al Pacino made a very good definition in the film And Justice For All.

"What is justice? What is the intention of justice? Its intention is to make sure the guilty are proven guilty and the innocent are freed. Sounds simple right? Only it's not that simple. The problem is both sides wanna win, they wanna win regardless of the truth, justice exc.. winning is everything."

How do you figure she "enjoyed her victory"? We only see her in one scene, and her reaction seemed rather inert to me.

Am I the only one here who hates how everything seems to always be in the criminals favor?Rights,compassion,leniency,etc...?

You want to play the game, you'd better know the rules, love.
-Harry Callahan

Believe me, OP and everybody else here, I hate the system too. But defense attorneys are important when it comes to innocence and guilt in a courtroom. Even if they'd personally just as soon have nothing to do with an accused, they have to do their job and represent them to the best of their ability. Objectivity must take the place of subjectivity (personal biases, emotions, etc), no matter what the case is about. How that woman felt about Doob personally was beside the point. She probably was revolted by him. Nevertheless, she had to defend him to the best of her ability, regardless of any personal feelings toward him. Just like a doctor has to treat a patient the best they can, no matter who it is. Hippocratic oath. If it wasn't for defense attorneys, innocent people would be punished unjustly. Just as guilt must be exposed and punished, innocence at the same time must be protected.