To MBates and other defense lawyers,
Could you shed some light on lower sentences for convicted murderers? Why are they right and how do you justify trying for those when the client is in fact a murderer?
A lot of the talk defending defense lawyers in this thread has centered around the two extremes (ensuring a clearly guilty person who got the max punishment is given a fair unappealable trial like Garland, and ensuring an innocent person doesn't get convicted like Milgaard). However my speculation is that the animosity from some in this thread is coming from those who had someone close to them murdered where the accused got off with a perceived light punishment (e.g. the referenced 5 years).
|