I am really tired of the question.
Not because I hear it so often but because it shows a complete lack of understanding of our Constitution and our judicial system. Somehow we forgot that the idea was to protect the individual from the power of the government and make the government the hand of vengeance.
We forgot to educate ourselves that the reason for a defense is not to PROVE innocence or DISPROVE guilt, it is to PROVE guilt. It is not to use the word justice as a euphemism for vengeance or retaliation.
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
1. bring to justice, to cause to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one's misdeeds: The murderer was brought to justice.
a.to act or treat justly or fairly.
Justice, as a word and a concept, does not apply until guilt is determined. And that is not done, by anyone, under our Constitutions, until IMPARTIAL PEOPLE have looked at the facts and made a determination.
Until that time, there are freedoms to be protected, rights to be enforced, and facts to be determined.
That's my job. That is what I do. I do it for those who can pay me and those who have been marginalized. And I do it with all energy and zeal that I have. Because I took an oath to represent my client's to the best of my ability.
So it was with great interest and foreboding that I read a blog called Public Defender by Gideon. When we educate ourselves maybe we will have educated the judiciary as well.
Here is the link: