Quote:
Originally posted by justamom
No, it's more in the area of believing that the defense should not fabricate a defense they know to be false. One point of the interview that struck me was the fact that the defense KNEW he was guilty. A more honest approach would have been presenting a defense of HIM and HIS actions-he went crazy, he was on drugs, he was abused as a child. Take James's approach-as much as I hate the way the system works AT TIMES, to question procedure, too, would be based on facts. Instead, they created a scenario that implied some other person was responsible, that the lifestyle of the parents led to her kidnapping and death. They KNEW this was a lie. I'm not saying the lawyers shouldn't put on the best defense possible, but it should be based on the facts as they know or believe them to be true. The transcript is incomplete. Prior to Nimmo's interview, O'Reilly spoke of the FIRST attorney O J Simpson approached. He refused to take the case because he felt he could not sully his integrity by defending someone he believed was guilty. For attorneys to use the Constitution as an excuse is reaching. I don't believe it was ever intended to be used or manipulated in this manner.
|
I think I see what you're saying - I'm not sure really where I stand, I'm still trying to formulate a stance here . . . it's a weird situation, stuck between a (moral) obligation to do the 'right thing' and an (ethical) obligation to perform your job to the best of your ability.
I will agree that the Constitution should be used as an "excuse" - however, often there is a fine line between using the Constitution as justification for something (as it as intended) and making excuses, to my mind.
Threaded Mode