A lot of us get angry at the defense for defending someone who, to us, is obviously guilty. Some of the defense lawyers for OJ received death threats and criticisms from citizens for years after the trial. People would ask them how they could live with themselves knowing that they set an innocent man free. I somewhat agreed with those people until I heard their reasoning. The job of the defense is to force the prosecution to convict him beyond reasonable doubt. They said in law school they were taught that “ten guilty men set free is better than one innocent man convicted”. This completely changed how I viewed what they did and made me understand that especially for such a high profile case they had to make sure that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. After hearing their points I blame the prosecution for what happened. They did many things wrong and although some of them were traps set by the defense, they still made plenty of their own mistakes and should not have fallen for the traps.
i think that they do it for one thing only. Money. Because money is money. This is why most people don't trust attorneys and find them sleezy. A lawyer will almost always defend you whether they know you are guilty or not. As a matter of fact, it is best just to tell them the truth, so they know how to defend you.
ReplyDeleteDefense Lawyers are there to give the defendant a chance and challenge the prosecutions case. It is a way to show the jury that not everything that the prosecution says is true or put in the correct context. In the case of OJ, the defense exposed holes in the prosecution that they saw and it is their job to do so. If you were the defendant, you would want the right to a fair trial and not have the prosecution using lawyer tactics to trick the jury into feeling or thinking something that is not true. I also agree with Erik that they make a ton of money and better be trying their hardest to show the jury why the defendant should be not guilty.
ReplyDeleteVery good point. The only way true justice can be achieved is if both sides go through the process properly, and play their cards correctly. If the prosecution cannot use basic reasoning skills, fall in pitfalls that the defense sets up, and fails to effectively use evidence (that was improperly obtained, mind you), there is absolutely grounds for reasonable doubt.It would be unfair to convict people just because of what we think is true justice; it must be done by the book, and if one party looses because they mess up, it is nobody's fault but theirs.
ReplyDeleteput yourself in the Goldman's shoes, and in Nicoles and tell me if you support him. Yes i clearly understand it was the prosecutions fault or whatever but na o.j is still in the wrong. People did not follow after him when he was proven innocent. Why support a man who is clearly guilty.
ReplyDelete