Quote:
Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14
It isn't difficult to understand, and I've even said earlier that I get it's their job. I'm not some dunce that your last sentence is implying either. Like GGG said earlier, you're giving a rational answer to an emotional situation, and believe me when I say that burying a young adult knowing full well his killer is getting out in under 5 years due to how astute a defence lawyer he hired is hands down the hardest thing I've been through in my time.
I truthfully hope no one ever has to know that feeling. I'm just a friend of the victim, I have no clue how the family could deal with it.
|
Maybe my post did imply you were a dunce. It was not intended to. So my apology. And I fully accept the response that when it is personal and emotional it is therefore difficult to be rational (as opposed to not being able to understand).
So let me suggest only one further challenge to your statement above:
"...his killer is getting out in 5 years
due to how astute a defence lawyer he hired..."
I will be frank. I see why defence lawyers get this burden and I know that part of my choosing this professional role means I will carry it more often than not. That is fine.
All I ask is that people try - even when it is hard due to emotion - to not blame the defence lawyer for doing his or her job (especially because of the significant importance of the role of defence counsel over and above the circumstances of the individual case).
Your sentence could just as easily (and in many cases might more appropriately) read:
"...due to how high of a standard proof beyond a reasonable doubt is"
"...due to how unprepared the prosecutor was"
"...due to how negligent the police investigation was"
"...due to how effectively he planned the crime"
"...due to how light sentences are in Canadian law"
etc.
I get that sometimes unscrupulous defence lawyers do act improperly. I have seen it happen. But I suggest that is a much more rare occurrence than public perception appears to be.