Who knows? Maybe they have a bias towards a particular kind of person. Perhaps they are deflecting attention from their own theft. Perhaps they're just faulty witnesses.
I didn’t realize how badly I needed to hear the phrase “he selected a spaghetti carbonara and shoved it down his trousers” in a velvety English accent.
It may be because he collected extensive details from each of his clients, and still he claims he knows nothing. Is his job a Lego set of imaginary juridical constructs? Is it all about which side's speculations about the correct phrasing for what has happened sound better? That's not a high level. Courtrooms have never birthed much of high levels for more than a century already. Like, look at Harry J Anslinger's unbelievable case. Millions of families are still impacted for the worst.
I was also told by a lawyer friend of mine that even if your defendent is absolutely, beyond a shadow a doubt guilty, he needs an advocate to make sure that the punishment fits the crime and is not overly punitive.
The best answer to this I’ve also heard is: “It’s not necessarily about trying to get the person off the hook when you know that they’re guilty, it’s making sure that the prosecutor has done everything necessary to prove without reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime they are being accused of. Otherwise how long is it before any of us are accused of something that we didn’t do, and since defence doesn’t matter, we’re wrongly convicted? The job isn’t about preventing people that do wrong from being punished, it’s about keeping the court rooms accountable and ensuring they provide all necessary evidence and come to the correct verdict.”
Its also fundamentaly flawed. Somebody that murderd a bunch of kids should not be defended. Somebody that is head of a drug cartell should not be defended. There are cases where people SHOULD go straight to jail and have the key thrown into the ocean. Of course I understand the risk of corruption in this however, where people do this with innocents who are framed. But that just means everyone should be defended for the sake of trying to prevent innocents being thrown into jail. This is NOT the same as everyone having the right to be defended. Some people dont have the right. The problem is you cant always tell from the get go so better safe then sorry. Of course this in return means some very horrible bad people get defended. Our justice system is still very much a flawed mess and needs dramatic improvements. I say our as in world wide. There isnt a single truly functioning just system in the world yet where innocents always go free and bad people with lots of power money and influence never go free despite having these things.
@@amberanimeOf course there isn’t a perfect system, we don’t live in a perfect world. I believe the system we have may be flawed, but it’s the best one humanity has ever had. There is not a single person that can choose to condemn you based off their own bias. Sure, the rich and powerful may get away with crimes. They always have. But under this system, we at least acknowledge that it is wrong. They have to break the law to get away with such things. Sway a jury, hide some evidence, pay off a judge, whatever it is, it’s illegal. Few hundred years back, if you were powerful, you were simply immune from consequences. “Rules for thee, not for me”. At least on paper, everyone is afforded equal protections under the law. We still have much work to make sure what’s on paper becomes our reality, but it is progress. I don’t believe changing the system to simply make it easier to incriminate people would make anything better. In fact, it would probably have the opposite effect of what you described. The rich and powerful would simply use their resources to find a work around. They have enough power to circumvent ANY justice system.
@@arandomyoutuber6634 you shouldnt get jail time for having weed either. illegal or no, thats no justification for the harshness of the penalty of the law
Except the clients will usually be honest with their attorneys about whether they did it or not so they can plan a proper defense. A lawyer's job is to represent the client and try to get them the best possible outcome, not get to the truth. That's why you have attorney-client privilege.
@@MrMakoto2 Its not false. Clients will literally tell they did it so they lawyer can help them out of the situation. The lawyer tells them to lie sometimes so they can make a good defense.
@@MrMakoto2 Actually wait, why would the fuck would your attorney be under oath? I think that's the key part here. The witness is under oath, not your attorney so they can lie and mislead all they want.
Hello! EveryoneToday, I am inviting you to come to Jesus Christ and be sure you are truly following God and doing his will by repenting and being immersed in the Baptism of life. Please come and be saved and see the truth and love of God and his mercy and kindness and for yourself. He can lead us on the path of light that leads to Heaven. I hope you will consider it. May God bless you! 🙂
@@chanceweslowski7792 thank you so much. I've always been an atheist, but when I read this comment I gave my life to Jesus and I'm going to become a preacher
So something that I've always thought about criminal defense attorneys is that they aren't really defending a person but instead prosecuting the justice system. Their job is to make sure that the justice system is doing absolutely everything it's supposed to and to make sure that at no point an innocent person is prosecuted of a crime they did not commit.
Basically. They also have to make sure the punishment isn't too severe for the crime, the system often adds extra to the case because they know defense lawyers argue stuff down. It's a pretty ridiculous cycle.
Sure, but what happens in outlier cases? Where their is a boatload of circumstancial evidence and literally no one else fits the profile and the defendant keeps mocking the prosecution that they can get fucked cuz they aint gonna find anything hard on them so the defendant cant even be brought to trial. So basically the person is guilty and defense lawyer knows it too. Defendant gets to walk away even though everybody and their mother knows he was guilty. I'm assuming that IRL there are a lot of "perfect" crimes get done and all the Defense lawyer have to do is "My client says nothing and denies everything" to get that not guilty.
@@AngRyGohan lawyers don't always tell clients to dent accusations. Sometimes it's better to plead guilty. Also even with all of that stuff against one person there is still a good chance it's not your client.
I respect and accept this much more than another stance I heard from defense layers and professors on criminal and civilian law: "we don't defend people, we defend their rights". It was an alright formula on the surface, but the more I delved into studying court practice, defense lawyer practice, the more I saw that, especially in case of successful defenders, the focus is not that, not saying that they don't defend rights of defendants, it's hard to explain. But to say "everybody may lie, and our job is to represent everybody exactly the same, even if it takes courage" is much more honest, understandable and sound explanation
Wild that this was recommended to me today, 8 years later, and I've never heard of you. I've the mind to look you up and see where you are today. I wish you a good and long lasting career.
Imagine a world where lawyers just universally refused to defend someone who seemed guilty. Imagine being innocent but looking guilty and knowing you’re going to prison because nobody will bother to defend you. In this hypothetical world, we wouldn’t be sentenced based on a unanimous decision by 12 unbiased people but rather by the whim of your lawyer and whether or not they “think” you’re guilty.
@@handsomejack7901 eh, the us prison system specifically is one of the worst in the world but the actual court system itself is one of the better ones out there all things considered.
@@handsomejack7901 The fact that they don’t know you is the whole point. If it was people you knew it would be impossible to eliminate bias based on whether they “feel like you’d do it.” But if you’re being judged by strangers the only thing they have to judge you with is the evidence.
I always imagined it's not just about proving an innocent person is innocent. Its also about making sure prosecution can prove that guilty person is indeed guilty with evidence and without doubt.
Because it's not about proving an innocent person is innocent. That's the exact opposite of the entire ethos of the Western legal system. The burden of proof is not on the defense, it's on the prosecution.
And even if the person is actually guilty, they must have a defense no matter what. Lets say a man killed another person and that's a fact that everybody already knows in trial. His sentence length will be determined by a number of other factors that goes beyond the simple fact that he killed someone. It was an accident or not? If not, it was self defense or not? Again, if not, there was passion and/or other emotions involved or not? All this questions have answers that will determine the appropriate sentence and, for that to happen, the killer needs someone to defend him. And I can go further. Even if we knew that the guy was a cold blooded killer, he needs the RIGHT for a defense. Someone could ask "Why?". Because if he doesnt, where do we draw the line exactly? Where exactly do we say "this person cannot have a defense"? It is not possible to draw this line precise enough so that wouldn't happen misjudgments. That said, EVERYONE needs a defense, not matter what they've done. And if everyone needs a defense, there must be someone to defend even the most brutal murders out there. And this someone is only doing their job, acting in its role in the criminal process. Lawyers shouldnt be judged by that. Sorry for the broken english, not a native speaker.
@@Kimera92 Your English is fine. I always remember Star Trek TNG season 2 episode 9 - The measure of man. Riker must prosecute his freind Data on the status of being considered a person (Data is an advanced intelligent android). In the end Data thanks Riker, because Riker indirectly pushed Data to prove it to Star Fleet (the ones questioning his status as a person) in every possible way by asking hard questions. They both deep down knew he was a person, but they also knew how the Star Fleet courts work. I suggest trying to find some clips on youtube if you want or watch the episode, it's a good story.
this is such an amazing message, to treat everyone with respect, no matter what. we are all human, we are all one, we’re no different from each other. everyone deserves respect and we should work together, not against each other
No one disagrees with that. But you're still trying to convince the people who decide the outcome that a murderer or a rapist or a child molester is innocent and should face no consequences
@@shawn.spencer yeah and the prosecution will try to get an innocent man in prison as that’s what their job is. These are necessary positions, it may not work 100% of the time but two opposing forces using reason to accomplish their sole goal is the best legal system we have.
The judge in a jury trial is only there to make sure the trial is conducted properly. What do you mean “the jury shouldn’t be the jury”? They decide guilty or innocent, not the one with the gavel. It’s not a hammer.
@Lina even if you believe they are guilty. You must have faith in the legal system. If everyone guilty or innocent is prosecuted by the prosecution and defended by the defence it’s a fair system. In a fair system the jury should be able to decide if that person can be proved guilty or innocent. If you defend someone who you think is guilty and they are not convicted then the prosecution needed to do a better job, not that the defence was too strong. If the prosecution can’t prove that person guilty then one must ask why we believe they are guilty? Sometimes, the burden of proof is too high to be met with limited evidence. But that is for good reason. If it were the other way around, innocent people would be convicted because they didn’t have enough evidence to prove themselves innocent. Definitely not a perfec system. And people who are guilty sometimes get away with their crimes. But that is because the justice system is designed to protect innocent people. That means everyone gets a barrister who will defend them.
"We reperesent everybody in the same way, with exactly the same profession" Is actually great life advice to keep yourself grounded whenever feeling imbalanced... Responding from a place of not knowing is the most honest response to any situation in life!
I dated a girl back in the day who was a lawyer and asked her how she can defend someone who she knows is guilty. She told me basically that you have to look at the bigger picture and that America’s justice system is built on rights to a fair trial and innocent until proven guilty. If you go against that on a larger scale (as in, everyone who is guilty isn’t given the right to a fair trial), then the system would be broken, flawed, and in fact more innocent people would be thrown into jail due to our assumptions of who is guilty or not. She said the same thing you said that it’s best to give this man his rights and to fight for his freedom because only he knows the absolute truth. Your job is to represent that.
It’s not a right, it’s not written down anywhere. The justice system is just designed in a way that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, it’s not a right.
The defense's attorney job is to make sure the person has a fair trial, in that the law is being upheld by all other members of the court. It is a checks and balance system. It is not just an "innocent until probent guilty" but also "punishment fits the crime", and that everyone is informed of all of their legal options and rights.
Indeed, even if they're guilty of "crime A" (I'm not very creative here), that then shouldn't be e.g. used to imply that they must have done "crime B", nor let personal opinions on someone affect how they get treated.
Not sure I understand exactly what your getting at. It seems like your suggesting that a defense attorney’s job is, in part, to make sure the punishment fits the crime. You have to assume some level of guilt if you are to determine that the punishment fits the crime. As part of the system you might hope that it all amounts to a system where the “punishment fits the crime” but that is not the directive of a defense attorney.any more than it's a jockeys job to make sure that the best horse wins the race. The jockeys job is to try and make the horse they are riding win and a defense attorney’s job is much the same except the levels of control they have over winning are much different to a jockey. In terms of not assuming your clients guilt it, I might try to stretch that jockey analogy and say that you don't always know if your horse can win or not even if the odds are against them, sometimes an outsider wins the race but if you ride it like a loser then you almost ensure that it will lose.
Unless the defendant has money in which case a lawyer will defend them regardless of how heinous the crime. Knowingly taking the side of a dangerous criminal because they are paying you to keep them out of jail is lowly and pathetic. But yeah, keep idolizing our perfect “checks and balances system”
In life: Sometimes we defend someone guilty having the doubts that they've been framed or forced to do something, but once we say their behaviour and true colours in other situations, we realise that we've been fools.
Court appointed attorneys in the US don't really give a shit. They put the bare minimum effort into a case even if there is evidence that might prove the accused innocent.
@Dan N Chris chan, as awful and horrible a person she is, identifies as a women so please use she/her pronouns. Even the most depraved criminals deserve having their pronouns respected. In my opinion anyway. I'm drunk as I type this so if u disagree just put it down to me feeling pretty sentimental right now n dont come for me bc I am afraid of conflict please and thanksbxxxx
To quote Ace Attorney: “believe in your client” Regardless of guilt or innocence, you have to defend them with as much professionalism and determination as everyone else, and sometimes more so.
Ed SMM2 and why exactly did you feel the need to write out the entire case and spoil it for people who didn’t play the games yet instead of just referencing the case number?
I’ve always heard and agreed with the same argument: When criminals lose their rights, all it takes for the rest of us is to be labeled as criminals, then we lose our rights as well.
@@eneco3965yeah the amount of selectively enforceable laws that we're all breaking all the time is crazy. Ties into race a lot too, and just the wild amount of power we give our cops. Ugh
@M-qw9ru biological sex is much more complex than just 'male and female', its a rather facinating topic that I'd definitely suggest you look into. Though, I doubt you'll do that, as you don't care about biology or the fascinating world of genes, chromosomes and our brains, you only care to punch down on those you see as below you.
“I’m gonna post something very slightly related to the video and just not watch it. Then I can do the same to another video and farm those sweet sweet subscribers like Justin Y!”
i'm a law student in Australia. i haven't taken my ethics course yet, but this struck a chord in me that i didn't know i had. i think i needed to hear this.
The best I’ve heard it put is *“If you think someone is guilty, it is their right that you prove it true beyond a doubt. It’s not my job to make sure they’re moral; it’s my job to make sure the system does its part and keeps its integrity.”*
@@alexanderevans7426 Doesn’t matter. If they aren’t going to plead guilty then they will need defense. Pretty sure attorney client privilege covers whatever “knowing they are guilty” liability you think the attorney should suffer
@@alexanderevans7426 (It's a case of "knowing someone is guilty" and trying to get them off which is against the law) In the USA, a lawyer who refuses to defend a client because they know them to be guilty is themselves breaking the law and likely to be disbarred. Ex: You're defending a guy accused of murder. The prosecution has dubious evidence and there are holes in the stories of witnesses, etc. But then, the guy admits to you that he did it. You'd still have to defend him. And if you were to tell anyone of what he admitted to you, it would be an illegal breach of confidentiality and it would be inadmissible. Though if the lawyer knowingly allows false evidence/testimony, then that's illegal.
@@hollowollowyeet886 they should focus on rehabilitation. If someone’s stealing a frozen meal more often than not it’s cause they’re struggling for food. Simply placing them in a prison will leave them in the exact situation except even worse off
It shouldn't be possible to get 6 months for stealing a small amount of food in the first place. I don't even care what he'd done previously, he's clearly just trying to eat some food like. The system is a joke.
@@TraceurNath He stole from someone else. You never know if him stealing from someone else meant that they couldn't eat and they went hungry instead, because of the selfish actions of someone else. And that's why stealing and stuff like that will never be okay.
@@spy5765 i respect your position but aiding the notion that businesses are people has done so much harm legally over the decades. That business lost nothing. Their loss recouped in loss prevention insurance. That man lost 6 months of his life and much more once he was out for having a conviction. Guess he should have just starved to death.
@@reneebear3641 Chris is a he. It's been confirmed that he puts the trans lady facade just so he could get a chance to sleep with lesbians. And, well, knowing Chris, it's definitely that.
6mo in prison? For stealing a frozen meal? That's outrageous. Make him pay a fine or do service for the store, it'd cost the country a lot less and benefit the place he stole from. Maybe if he stole again then yeah, prison time, but starting off with 6mo is still insane..
Starting off with six months is insane, isn't it? Makes you wonder what's more likely; someone actually got 6 months for shoplifting or a rather huge chunk of this story got left out???
I read this somewhere So the job is to make sure that the persecution doesn’t take on charges that aren’t relevant. Basically, to just keep things fair
Pretty much. Despite what a person is guilty of, they have to have appropriate charges for the crime. Defense isn't just about getting a not guilty verdict, but also making sure the client is fairly tried in general.
yeah i mean there is some cases wher old woman "steals" a wood from a big company property, and she got 5 years in prison, while a corruptor or money laundrying case only got 3 month in prison. wtf
This answer is very good, completely unbiased professionnalism, that's what you want from an attorney/lawyer (don't really know the difference between the two)
A lawyer doesn’t have to be someone who practices law but has learned and trained well about it. An attorney or “attorney at law” is someone who fills the criteria of a lawyer but also practices law in court. Or at least that’s what the internet says.
There are a lot of lawyers in my family and I asked them the question and they said they can tell if someone is lying or not usually and if the client is lying to them they just don't take the case
I love your reasoning, sir, and I will share it with my classes along with what I always tell them. Even if a defense attorney is certain that his/her client is guilty it is much better to make the best case of defense for your client, forcing the prosecution to do their best. An airtight win by the prosecution when you have done your very best to defend someone’s innocence means less chance that the now guilty client will go free in appeals.
To add to this, the prosecution must put up the most airtight case possible so they can ensure they are doing their part to see the jury only convict when they have no reasonable doubt of the accused’s guilt. It MUST be proven. Accurately. Without bias. With precision. With extreme adherence to the law. Nothing less. Then, and only then, can they rest easier knowing that someone’s innocence was removed. Innocence is precious and a right. Until PROVEN guilty. When a great prosecutor and a great defense attorney and a great judge and a great jury do their jobs, the system works!
One thing that caught my interest was the security guards that witnessed him in one aisle. Not one not two but four. What were four security guards doing watching one aisle at the exact moment something happens?
That was what i was thinking too! I thought it would be like, one guard saw him acting suspicious around the aisle, then the one near the exit saw something bulging out of his pocket, and so on... Then I was like, wait, all four saw the exact same thing? That sounds like horribly ineffective way to guard a store
@@letsreadtextbook1687 If he's a repeat offender, and had a history of being there with items missing then you want a good number of witnesses, the more that can confirm your view point the stronger your prosecution (or defense vice versa) You don't get a sentence like that unless there is substantial evidence that he was a repeating stealing at the store. But if you are going to apprehend someone for a crime you need witnesses to avoid the 'He planted it on me' They probably passed details immediately to police if he got out unchallenged (or forced his way out). Dominic gave the case in a summary as the point he was making that while handling a case which was pretty much clear cut, he still had to remain impartial.
Lmao yeah what country is this? Somalia? Prison for stealing food? Wtf? A fine would be harsh lmao, half a year prison is incomprehensible. that's close to 1% of your entire life
If you wrote an audiobook about some of your encounters over the years (changing the names, of course) and performed the voices yourself, I think you would do very well. Your impression of the defendant was excellent. Thanks for the video Dominic
You're arriving at the same answer he did except you're somehow still incorrect. If you KNOW they're guilty and are representing them I think you might be Saul Goodman.
@@CerpinTxt87 Thats the bloody point: You never know. More generally (or philosophically) speaking there is not a single thing anyone knows about the world around us.
@@rangeldino2633 That (no one knows anything about the world) is not necessarily true. There are philosophical arguments against that statement (essentially you are stating the extreme anti-realist's position, realists have arguments against your views). If you want to learn about them and this debate, look it up. I am not capable of presenting good realist arguments well. I agree with you that no one can ever be 100% certain of an accused's innocence/guilt either way.
@@CerpinTxt87 even if you know they’re guilty, so what? He still has a right to defend himself, it’s up to the judge and jury to determinate guilt or not.
Thank you for this video. I have asked lawyers the same question many times, and they all skirt the question or say their client is innocent. I thought what was really happening was precisely what you stated. You took an oath to defend your client equally.
@@doejohn7548 Not quite. The more money, prestige, and PR you have plus race and gender considerations, the more likely it will be innocent until proven guilty. Poor Black/White/Hispanic males are more likely to be considered guilty until proven innocent compared to say Rich Asian/Indian/White females. And lets not forget appearance is a huge factor too, the more attractive you are, the higher chance of the public seeing you as innocent until proven guilty.
As a nurse, this hits home. We take care of people we think very highly of (and that society admires), and those on the other end of that spectrum. It is not our job to judge our patients or rank them in some heirarchy of value, who is more worthy or less worthy of our care. Our job is to take care of everyone... to take care of everyone the same... in the way we would want our family taken care of, the way we would want to be cared for ourselves.
I get your point but I'd like to ask you a question. I'm in hospital myself quite a lot, and I've seen this old man come in for the third time with a pretty severe injury. Each time it is because he is driving on his electric bycicle and is not wearing a helmet. Second time he got a head injury. One of the nurses mentioned this and this man and his wife got angry at the nurse for suggesting that it was maybe somehow his responsibility to wear protective gear (especially at their age). In cases where people are 'responsible' for their own pain, do you still feel like helping them as much? I've had another case of a woman who was laying next to me who didn't want to take her pills because she didn't trust them. Meanwhile, her condition was getting worse. Same question here.
I appreciate this. I'm a correctional psychologist and I have been told a whole bunch of utterly ridiculous things by inmates that turned out to true. I've also been told lots of lies, some ridiculous and others that seemed plausible. Once you start thinking you know what you should and shouldn't believe then you are a menace to yourself and everyone around you. I have devolved into a permanent state of polite agnosticism. I neither believe nor disbelieve anything at this point. I rather envy this guy.
@@Vxjx15 I was once told a very involved story by an inmate about the absurd lengths the county jail went to to avoid taking him to a doctor to be seen for melanoma. It involved letters from his lawyer and orders from a judge and all kinds of delays. I just couldn't believe that the jail would take such risks with someone's health just to be petty, especially since they had no way to deny that they were aware of the person's diagnosis. But it was all true. I've also had guys tell me stories about turning themselves in for offenses that had not been detected that I thought were really self-serving and couldn't possibly be true that actually turned out to be totally true.
@@snowmonster42 omg this looks so interesting!! ive always loved watching series nd playing games in which prisoners talk or show their sessions w psychiatrists but i couldnt find much.. can u tell me more pls? like would it be too scary to deal w people who may have killed several people or committed worse crimes? or do they look like normal ppl nd js talk nd nothing is wierd? sorry for being so nosy lol
It is a trial. The trial is not over yet, ergo the defense is not guilty. It is not his job to determine if his defense is or is not guilty, that is for the jury to decide.
@@omkarwaman4944 The point of the video was that he was SURE the person was guilty - and only months later he found out that he was probably innocent. In the end of the day, if the prosecution can't convict a guilty person it is their fault for failing to prove it. The prosecution should take to curt only when they can prove said person is guilty (or at least think they can)
Exactly correct sir! It doesn't matter who someone is, what they've done, or whether they're lying to you or not. Everyone deserves their day in court if they so choose, and with that they deserve a proper defense. Imagine if a physician let you die because he thought you were a bad person. That would be wholly unacceptable. Lawyers provide an important public service.
"It's not my job to be the jury" "I have no idea who's guilty and who's not" Wise words... puts lawyers in a different light. And defending them as you would your own loved ones or how you'd want to be defended. As crazy as a case may look to us from the outside looking in, I think I understand that. You've got a job, and you're gonna do it to the height of your ability.
Yeah, there are so so so many cases where evidence can be misleading. Take every false accusation that has gone to court, won, and then in 30 years you find out that the evidence was fraudulent or that people actually did have a motive and an innocent man or woman lost 30 years of their lives for no reason or literally their lives. The absolute worst idea that can enter a court room is mob mentality. Following the pack on what happened and what didn’t as fact has never ever been a reliable way to convict.
John Adams, one of the founders of the US, Defended all of the British involved with the Boston Massacre, arguing that you can't be a free society if some members are not protected under the law. It cost him a lot of support, and loyalty, but he deemed it more valuable that every person receive the same rights and process under the law as anyone else. I think he got all of them acquitted or reduced except for one iirc, and his sentence was commuted to be served back in England.
Yeah I do agree that people should have their rights, but I don't think it applies to every case. You're supposed to be telling what actually happen to your lawyers so they can defend you right? At some point the lawyers must know the truth if it's obvious.
@@muggedinmadrid it refers to the Dungeons and Dragons alignment system that uses a two-axis method to abstractly define your general personality and worldview. These two axes are good-evil and lawful-chaotic with both having a neutral alignment between them, so by describing him as Lawful Neutral he is neutral on the good-evil scale but ascribes as lawful on the lawful-chaotic scale
@@atheistfromaustria For a lawful neutral character, it doesn't matter if someone is guilty or not, good or evil. What matters is the law and the process. Everybody goes through it, nobody escapes it, nobody is denied it.
Especially for the vast majority of cases. Like what are the odds you're going to be defending someone you know is a psychopathic mass-killer or r*post or something? Very low. More often than not, you'll be defending normal people who have been hard done by against a system that is itching to sentence them. That doesn't mean they're innocent, but I think it's easier to process when you realize 9/10 times your client is just some guy or girl.
I don't like this video. I think the question isn't about some he-said, she-said with some corrupt security guards. The question is about people with strong physical evidence against them, and a history of violence, that you're sure did the crime. But it's a dumb question anyways, because yes, everyone is entitled to a defense as they should be.
@@hansolo631 You've missed the point. Unlikely shit happens, and even if some guy is a serial violent offender, then if he wasn't really guilty of what he is being charged with, it means the guy who _was_ guilty is still out there, likely doing the same thing again and again. Pattern recognition is useful in everyday life but it isn't enough for criminal trials. The situation described in this video is already extremely unlikely, but there are other examples of similar things happening. Wal-Mart, for example, sabotaging their own self-checkout machines to falsely accuse people of stealing and then extort them out of money or else go against one of the biggest corporations in court.
Maybe you should be more diligent then. Not to say that this man is wicked or evil, but don't let yourself get fooled by someone who is and is pretending they're not
My mom's friend is a defense lawyer, and she always said "I'm not here to judge if they are guilty or not, I'm just here to make sure their rights are defended"
@@vinaynayak1993 yes they do. As awful as they are, if we create a pit filled with people unworthy of rights, it is only a matter of time before trials just become about shoving people down that pit of "arbitrarily evil enough people". And if you really think what you propose will help stop terrorism, then you should realize terrorists will be the first ones to try to abuse the system you advocate for.
@@vinaynayak1993 Terrorists and murderers, hmm ... well what if they were mentally ill, and forced to commit terrorists acts? Shouldn't they face a slightly lesser punishment? What if it was a child who raped? What if they asked for consent from another minor, and then legally commited statutory rape? Should they get life in prison, they were only a child when it happened! The basis of human rights are that EVERYONE gets them. Plus, your definition of "hardened criminals" is very... flimsy and therefore incredibly hard to go through with. There are plenty of circumstances that can happen that make people avoid the death penalty, even if they commit these acts. Your point does not make much sense to me.
freddy46 this is cute and all and sounds nice on paper. When your own family member is raped, murdered, or your own child is endangered, you’ll be in a courtroom hoping to rip the criminals guts off. Nice one though 👏 👏 👏
I remember taking criminal law in my sophomore year in college. I had a female public defender who started the first class with, “I know you are all thinking it. Someone just ask me the question.” Finally one student asked, “How can you defend criminals, especially those who you know are guilty?” She replied, “I know a lot of my clients are guilty. But it doesn’t matter what I think. The US Constitution states that everyone is entitled to a defense, regardless of the crime or the amount of evidence against them. I don’t believe that I am defending criminals. I believe that I am defending the Constitution.” To this day, that was the best answer I have ever heard and she had my respect. She was a great professor and I learned a lot from her.
Hello! EveryoneToday, I am inviting you to come to Jesus Christ and be sure you are truly following God and doing his will by repenting and being immersed in the Baptism of life. Please come and be saved and see the truth and love of God and his mercy and kindness and for yourself. He can lead us on the path of light that leads to Heaven. I hope you will consider it. May God bless you! 🙂
If somebody wants an additional reason for how to defend someone you think is guilty, I had the experience of going to a law firm for a brief internship or practicum, in my country is called different ("stagiu de practica la un birou de avocatură ") and so the lawyer in there had explained us that in his work, he doesn't defend people, a lawyer defends the rights that any human is entitled to. I really liked the way he spoke about this job and I believe this allows any lawyer, attorney, or any other similar profesionist to work objectively and be more effective
I like people with long brain. I have long amount of disl*kes btw. Why? Maybe people with short brain disl*ke because jealous of my long amount of subscr*bers. Please have long brain, dear fai
@@pikeman7351 the dude goes around to a lot of videos, and comments to get more people to click on their channel profile. They've done it before to videos I've watched =u=
Bro he spent 2 minutes talking about mr smith, coming to the conclusion that he hadn't defended the guy properly and that he had been set up, spent 6 months in jail for nothing, and THEN HE DOESN'T EVEN EXPLAIN THE CONSPIRACY. Just goes on to say "I don't know who's guilty". WHY DID HE BELIEVE MR SMITH WAS RIGHT? WHY?
@@MrAykron because he didn’t want to drag out the video with extra information that would leave the main idea. What the conspiracy was doesn’t matter. It can be as simple as they didn’t like how he looked, it doesn’t change the story.
I, as someone who has no experience in law, always see it as making sure that the police/prosecution did their job properly. If defense attorneys start to get lazy and think “this person did the crime, my defense doesn’t matter”, then the police will be lazy in collecting and presenting evidence, which is a scary thing to think about.
I’m a 20-year police supervisor. This is exactly why I have respect for defense attorneys. They keep us sharp and make sure we do our jobs properly better than anyone else can. I’m constantly thinking “If I was a defense attorney, what hole would I poke into this investigation?”
@Accurize2 That is a really profound and reassuring comment from someone in the police force. I have no doubt you are an excellent copper and I can only hope you keep up the good work whilst maintaining the sanguine and balanced views to currently hold. I hope you are well and Kind regards, Dominic
if my teachers at school told me this, i would be extremely bored. but when this guy teaches me something, i'm genuinely interested and do my best to pay attention.
i actually researched this a little bit and found out that only in 2014 was the law changed in england to include shoplifting of lower value items, which fits this case and would have been a MAXIMUM of six months. however, this happened 25+ years ago, which as far as i can tell would mean that the maximum would be seven YEARS maximum (which comes from an act made in 1968). considering that, this guy got off with a pretty mild sentence. he also seemingly didn't plead guilty or show any signs of why he would shoplift (mental issues, financial issues, etc.), otherwise the sentence would have been lowered. this is assuming the case was in england which i can't be sure of.
this was such an amazing video 🎉 it was so inspiring and you’re such a good storyteller! i was hooked lined and sunk. i got chills, you’re spreading an amazing message 😊
Mr. Smith got 6 months in prison for _stealing a frozen meal???_ Even if he had been guilty, that's absolutely bonkers. That he was taken to trial at all is wild. Poor guy. EDIT: Starting to get dragged into internet discussion. Am gonna disengage for my own sanity. Proceed with caution!
@@jamesmacdonald5881Did you not watch the video? The story about the security guards framing him was actually true. I don’t see why we would assume he had previous convictions.
reminds me of a story my mum sometimes tells me about working as a court usher, one time she met a young man who was being taken to court over stealing a *toothbrush* from a supermarket, if i have to remember i think it was sainsbury's. i mean come on.
“Your honor, my client is not guilty because he said no cap”
ratio
Nah,he tweakin
Damnit
I just posted this same comment
@@Soup0066 I was about to do it too
Cleared of all charges immediately
This guy's good at making a point he should be a lawyer
yeah what's he doing making coffee :^)
Yeah man, he is so fit to become one.
Nice selfie as a pfp.
You’re right, he should
Here he is, wasting it by Vlogging..
“i’m not guilty, no cap”
“your honour, as you can see he is being deadass”
@Shin Shaman and?
@@shakirathompson6333 he is a bot spamming in these comments dont worry lol
@racsomv That doesn’t even make any sense
@racsomv sus
Made my skin crawl
"Your Honor, if he were lying then why are his pants not on fire?"
Lol
Because he has frozen spaghetti in them. Guilty.
*trousers
No smoke without fire; lying, pants on fire. No smoke = not lying.
Conclusion: all smokers are liars.
I appreciate your kindness 💓❤
I'm more interested in this very weird conspiracy that the guards were involved in!
Lol
I'm more interested in how someone got 6 months for stealing a frozen pizza. That seems like a lot.
Edit: you people are way too literal.
@@dylancrouch273
Im surprised they didnt bring back hanging for this horrendous crime
@@dylancrouch273 they probably said it was the last one, nothing beneath murder for that
Who knows? Maybe they have a bias towards a particular kind of person. Perhaps they are deflecting attention from their own theft. Perhaps they're just faulty witnesses.
"Your honour stfu you werent even there"
@@GuidelinesViolatorbro wtf are you on
@@skystone15 70% of crimes
@@skystone15 70% of crimes
@@GuidelinesViolator okay youre twelve
@@GuidelinesViolatorwrong reply section i think
I didn’t realize how badly I needed to hear the phrase “he selected a spaghetti carbonara and shoved it down his trousers” in a velvety English accent.
🤣
6 months for that though? that was the least soothing thing ive heard in a while. Jesus. 6 months for a frozen dinner
@@ts4gv probably had priors. Doesn't make it right but I think that's the likely explanation.
"and adjusted it"
The carbonara?
I heard it as i read your comment
That was the most lawyer answer he could have possibly given
It may be because he's a lawyer
It may be because he collected extensive details from each of his clients, and still he claims he knows nothing. Is his job a Lego set of imaginary juridical constructs? Is it all about which side's speculations about the correct phrasing for what has happened sound better? That's not a high level. Courtrooms have never birthed much of high levels for more than a century already. Like, look at Harry J Anslinger's unbelievable case. Millions of families are still impacted for the worst.
You have a great energy💓😊😊
Better than anything I’ve ever heard a politician say.
Absolutely not.
I was also told by a lawyer friend of mine that even if your defendent is absolutely, beyond a shadow a doubt guilty, he needs an advocate to make sure that the punishment fits the crime and is not overly punitive.
like 6 months in prison for a TV dinner?
@@Slayer_of_Demons Listen buddy, we let one TV dinner go next thing you know they’re coming after our movie dinners.
Except it is rarely just .
@@Vietmac1993 He was innocent though. He told the truth and had nothing to come clean about.
@@Vietmac1993 Did you watch the video? He was innocent
The best answer to this I’ve also heard is:
“It’s not necessarily about trying to get the person off the hook when you know that they’re guilty, it’s making sure that the prosecutor has done everything necessary to prove without reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime they are being accused of.
Otherwise how long is it before any of us are accused of something that we didn’t do, and since defence doesn’t matter, we’re wrongly convicted?
The job isn’t about preventing people that do wrong from being punished, it’s about keeping the court rooms accountable and ensuring they provide all necessary evidence and come to the correct verdict.”
Damn I coulda just watched your comment instead of this schmuck
This comment needs to be pinned
Thats a better answer.
This comment is really good.
This has given me a newfound respect for lawyers, thanks!
“Your honour, my client is not guilty because he said he’s fr.”
No cap
@@User_12yt.ooooo1 no cap x2
“Deadass”
"Legit"
my client is, and i quote; “Ain’t guilty, on god”.
"Everyone has the right to be defended" is a really good phrase
It applies to a lot of stuff, and most importantly, perspective.
Its also fundamentaly flawed. Somebody that murderd a bunch of kids should not be defended. Somebody that is head of a drug cartell should not be defended. There are cases where people SHOULD go straight to jail and have the key thrown into the ocean. Of course I understand the risk of corruption in this however, where people do this with innocents who are framed. But that just means everyone should be defended for the sake of trying to prevent innocents being thrown into jail. This is NOT the same as everyone having the right to be defended. Some people dont have the right. The problem is you cant always tell from the get go so better safe then sorry. Of course this in return means some very horrible bad people get defended. Our justice system is still very much a flawed mess and needs dramatic improvements. I say our as in world wide. There isnt a single truly functioning just system in the world yet where innocents always go free and bad people with lots of power money and influence never go free despite having these things.
@@amberanimeOf course there isn’t a perfect system, we don’t live in a perfect world. I believe the system we have may be flawed, but it’s the best one humanity has ever had. There is not a single person that can choose to condemn you based off their own bias.
Sure, the rich and powerful may get away with crimes. They always have. But under this system, we at least acknowledge that it is wrong. They have to break the law to get away with such things. Sway a jury, hide some evidence, pay off a judge, whatever it is, it’s illegal. Few hundred years back, if you were powerful, you were simply immune from consequences. “Rules for thee, not for me”. At least on paper, everyone is afforded equal protections under the law. We still have much work to make sure what’s on paper becomes our reality, but it is progress.
I don’t believe changing the system to simply make it easier to incriminate people would make anything better. In fact, it would probably have the opposite effect of what you described. The rich and powerful would simply use their resources to find a work around. They have enough power to circumvent ANY justice system.
The Ukraine has the right to be defended.
6 months in jail for stealing a frozen meal. guilty or not, that is absolutely absurd.
@@jacejohnson7113 ppl are still sentenced life for an ounce or two of weed lmao the justice system has and still is wack
@@arandomyoutuber6634 you shouldnt get jail time for having weed either. illegal or no, thats no justification for the harshness of the penalty of the law
To be fair, he would just get a shorter punishment if he just says that he’s guilty rather than continue lying.
@@Chromaspell um that happens in america not the uk. the case happened in the uk
@@Chromaspell life sentences for weed??
Where do you live?
“I have no idea who is guilty or not. So, I do the same for everyone.” Straight facts.
Except the clients will usually be honest with their attorneys about whether they did it or not so they can plan a proper defense. A lawyer's job is to represent the client and try to get them the best possible outcome, not get to the truth. That's why you have attorney-client privilege.
@@MrMakoto2 Its not false. Clients will literally tell they did it so they lawyer can help them out of the situation. The lawyer tells them to lie sometimes so they can make a good defense.
@@MrMakoto2 Actually wait, why would the fuck would your attorney be under oath? I think that's the key part here. The witness is under oath, not your attorney so they can lie and mislead all they want.
That sounds like Cap
sounds about right until the evidence is unquestionable and they still try to give the person as low sentencing as possible.
“Your honor, my client is not guilty because he put it on his mama”
"He said ong"
mum's soul
“On my moma I didn’t kill him”
Understandable, have a nice day
"well why are you still here? youre free to go"
You know a nigga serious when he put it on his mama
“Your honor, my client pleads oopsie-daisy”
“Your honor, my client is not guilty because he’s just not”
hard facts over here
based
source: trust me bro
we got new evidence your honour
"free my bro he aint do nun💯
He clearly said he was “dead ass,”
Your honour, my client is not guilty! He’s simply going through his joker arc.
This is boys. Go home, this one wins
Ah yes, that is indeed boys
Very boys if you don’t mind me saying.
time for his redemption arc
@@SolarDos can confirm, this is boys
“Your honor, my client can’t possibly be guilty because he said it’s just a prank”
@@charliefifield5783 it’s not cringe it’s just a prank bro
@@yeetedbot it's a social experiment
@@mahshshsrklingfa7031 it's a study
Cringe
"Yes your honor, he even said there's a camera right over there"
Louigi's lawyer is watching this rn (watching in December 2024 😂)
Louigi’s team going ‘wirte that down’💀
Lmao
mama mia
Your honor, my client isn’t guilty, you should hear his villain backstory
I assure you, he's gonna have a redemption arc throughout the next months.
Hello! EveryoneToday, I am inviting you to come to Jesus Christ and be sure you are truly following God and doing his will by repenting and being immersed in the Baptism of life. Please come and be saved and see the truth and love of God and his mercy and kindness and for yourself. He can lead us on the path of light that leads to Heaven. I hope you will consider it. May God bless you! 🙂
@@chanceweslowski7792 thank you so much. I've always been an atheist, but when I read this comment I gave my life to Jesus and I'm going to become a preacher
I took my life reading that god ain't real
@@escapegoat3673 LMFAOO PLS
“Your honor, my client isn’t guilty, he’s just quirky”
lmao what. qwerty objects!
"He couldn't help it, he's such a Gemini! 🤪"
@@Retotion 🤪🤪😜😩
PLA
😐😐😐😐
So something that I've always thought about criminal defense attorneys is that they aren't really defending a person but instead prosecuting the justice system. Their job is to make sure that the justice system is doing absolutely everything it's supposed to and to make sure that at no point an innocent person is prosecuted of a crime they did not commit.
Basically. They also have to make sure the punishment isn't too severe for the crime, the system often adds extra to the case because they know defense lawyers argue stuff down. It's a pretty ridiculous cycle.
@@leepeffers9331 good point!
Yes agreed
Sure, but what happens in outlier cases? Where their is a boatload of circumstancial evidence and literally no one else fits the profile and the defendant keeps mocking the prosecution that they can get fucked cuz they aint gonna find anything hard on them so the defendant cant even be brought to trial. So basically the person is guilty and defense lawyer knows it too. Defendant gets to walk away even though everybody and their mother knows he was guilty. I'm assuming that IRL there are a lot of "perfect" crimes get done and all the Defense lawyer have to do is "My client says nothing and denies everything" to get that not guilty.
@@AngRyGohan lawyers don't always tell clients to dent accusations. Sometimes it's better to plead guilty. Also even with all of that stuff against one person there is still a good chance it's not your client.
I respect and accept this much more than another stance I heard from defense layers and professors on criminal and civilian law: "we don't defend people, we defend their rights". It was an alright formula on the surface, but the more I delved into studying court practice, defense lawyer practice, the more I saw that, especially in case of successful defenders, the focus is not that, not saying that they don't defend rights of defendants, it's hard to explain.
But to say "everybody may lie, and our job is to represent everybody exactly the same, even if it takes courage" is much more honest, understandable and sound explanation
"Your honor, my client is not guilty of any accusation because he said deadass"
Lowkey bro!
@@njm5642 cringe
@@brayanisrael9175 you missed the joke but yeah go ahead
@@njm5642 whats the joke
@@Ok-wf8yd the joke is : people who say ‘’deadass’’ a lot usually say ‘’lowkey’’ and ‘’bro’’ a lot as well, here it is I spelled it out for you.
“Your honor, my client is not guilty, he's just built different"
The comment has been out for a day and has 552 likes
Differently*
nice joke, dickhead. u come up with it by yourself? cuz this definitely isn't the hundredth time seeing it.
@GraffitiTurtle it was the second comment. youtube commenters are just cognitively-stunted children incapable of being funny or original
@@smisv Someone's mad O.O
The RUclips algorithm has brought us all together for this story.
That joke is dead
@@Bibleguy89-uu3nr thanks for saying it
I just watched an one piece video and here am I now
RUclips brough us here because. . . Chris-chan
I’m glad I came here
Wild that this was recommended to me today, 8 years later, and I've never heard of you. I've the mind to look you up and see where you are today. I wish you a good and long lasting career.
RUclips: This guy literally has no preference, lets just recommend him anything.
lmao same, i think this is being sent to anyone
Yeah
honestly though lmao
Yup just popped on my feed today out of nowhere
but it’s good… so
Imagine a world where lawyers just universally refused to defend someone who seemed guilty. Imagine being innocent but looking guilty and knowing you’re going to prison because nobody will bother to defend you. In this hypothetical world, we wouldn’t be sentenced based on a unanimous decision by 12 unbiased people but rather by the whim of your lawyer and whether or not they “think” you’re guilty.
That’s why it’s not actually like that
Welcome to ace attorney
Lol American legal system is shite
Especialy nowadays lol
@@handsomejack7901 eh, the us prison system specifically is one of the worst in the world but the actual court system itself is one of the better ones out there all things considered.
@@handsomejack7901 The fact that they don’t know you is the whole point. If it was people you knew it would be impossible to eliminate bias based on whether they “feel like you’d do it.” But if you’re being judged by strangers the only thing they have to judge you with is the evidence.
I always imagined it's not just about proving an innocent person is innocent. Its also about making sure prosecution can prove that guilty person is indeed guilty with evidence and without doubt.
Because it's not about proving an innocent person is innocent. That's the exact opposite of the entire ethos of the Western legal system. The burden of proof is not on the defense, it's on the prosecution.
@@Lucas-sk5iy Yes, that is essentially what I said...
And even if the person is actually guilty, they must have a defense no matter what.
Lets say a man killed another person and that's a fact that everybody already knows in trial. His sentence length will be determined by a number of other factors that goes beyond the simple fact that he killed someone.
It was an accident or not? If not, it was self defense or not? Again, if not, there was passion and/or other emotions involved or not? All this questions have answers that will determine the appropriate sentence and, for that to happen, the killer needs someone to defend him.
And I can go further.
Even if we knew that the guy was a cold blooded killer, he needs the RIGHT for a defense.
Someone could ask "Why?".
Because if he doesnt, where do we draw the line exactly? Where exactly do we say "this person cannot have a defense"? It is not possible to draw this line precise enough so that wouldn't happen misjudgments.
That said, EVERYONE needs a defense, not matter what they've done. And if everyone needs a defense, there must be someone to defend even the most brutal murders out there. And this someone is only doing their job, acting in its role in the criminal process. Lawyers shouldnt be judged by that.
Sorry for the broken english, not a native speaker.
@@Kimera92 Your English is fine. I always remember Star Trek TNG season 2 episode 9 - The measure of man.
Riker must prosecute his freind Data on the status of being considered a person (Data is an advanced intelligent android). In the end Data thanks Riker, because Riker indirectly pushed Data to prove it to Star Fleet (the ones questioning his status as a person) in every possible way by asking hard questions. They both deep down knew he was a person, but they also knew how the Star Fleet courts work.
I suggest trying to find some clips on youtube if you want or watch the episode, it's a good story.
lol wut?
this is such an amazing message, to treat everyone with respect, no matter what. we are all human, we are all one, we’re no different from each other. everyone deserves respect and we should work together, not against each other
Thanks so much.
The real question is how do you prosecute someone you know is innocent
Conviction rate percentage dictates your job. Therefore you go heavy on guilty pleas and especially hard on anyone that chooses a trial.
You typically don't. If the prosecution doesn't have enough confidence they dont take the case.
I would defend a thousand guilty criminals before I prosecuted a single innocent person
@@JOBdOut yeah, lets just ignore the actual evidence, right?
@@lp.shakur not arguing hes guilty. I'm arguing the punishment doesn't suit the crime.
"Our job as defense advocates is not to be the jury" I agree completely
No one disagrees with that. But you're still trying to convince the people who decide the outcome that a murderer or a rapist or a child molester is innocent and should face no consequences
@@shawn.spencer yeah and the prosecution will try to get an innocent man in prison as that’s what their job is.
These are necessary positions, it may not work 100% of the time but two opposing forces using reason to accomplish their sole goal is the best legal system we have.
The jurys job shouldnt even be being the jury man why tf do yall even have the guy with the hammer
The judge in a jury trial is only there to make sure the trial is conducted properly. What do you mean “the jury shouldn’t be the jury”? They decide guilty or innocent, not the one with the gavel. It’s not a hammer.
@Lina even if you believe they are guilty. You must have faith in the legal system. If everyone guilty or innocent is prosecuted by the prosecution and defended by the defence it’s a fair system. In a fair system the jury should be able to decide if that person can be proved guilty or innocent.
If you defend someone who you think is guilty and they are not convicted then the prosecution needed to do a better job, not that the defence was too strong.
If the prosecution can’t prove that person guilty then one must ask why we believe they are guilty?
Sometimes, the burden of proof is too high to be met with limited evidence. But that is for good reason. If it were the other way around, innocent people would be convicted because they didn’t have enough evidence to prove themselves innocent.
Definitely not a perfec system. And people who are guilty sometimes get away with their crimes. But that is because the justice system is designed to protect innocent people. That means everyone gets a barrister who will defend them.
This guy has the most charismatic and soothing voice ever
no wonder he's a lawyer
huh
He practice it, part of the career
He sounds like some guy in a movie
The smoking probably played a role
"We reperesent everybody in the same way, with exactly the same profession" Is actually great life advice to keep yourself grounded whenever feeling imbalanced... Responding from a place of not knowing is the most honest response to any situation in life!
I dated a girl back in the day who was a lawyer and asked her how she can defend someone who she knows is guilty. She told me basically that you have to look at the bigger picture and that America’s justice system is built on rights to a fair trial and innocent until proven guilty. If you go against that on a larger scale (as in, everyone who is guilty isn’t given the right to a fair trial), then the system would be broken, flawed, and in fact more innocent people would be thrown into jail due to our assumptions of who is guilty or not. She said the same thing you said that it’s best to give this man his rights and to fight for his freedom because only he knows the absolute truth. Your job is to represent that.
what if your client tells you they committed the crime?
edit: okay guys I get it now you can stop replying
Our justice system in the UK isn’t the same as the justice system in the US.
@@Ok-kx2te That client wouldn't have to hire a lawyer in the first place if its just going to confess.
@@Daftfuhrer they're talking about if the client tells they lawyer the truth. That's why they are a CLIENT.
@@Orapac4142 Fair enough.
This is why the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is such an important human right.
Sadly in some countries like Japan you are guilty till proven innocent
It’s not a right, it’s not written down anywhere. The justice system is just designed in a way that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, it’s not a right.
@@tex-mex4082Actually it is written down, article 11 section 1 of the UN universal declaration of human rights.
The next human rights should be food, water, shelter, healthcare, and education.
@@tex-mex4082it's written down like the comment said below
He should read an audio book his voice is so engaging and calming, not to mention he did that impression very well!
But record it a reasonable level so we can actually HEAR it. ☹
Yeah he should be a lawyer..
plus 1
sounds like john bercow a little
Yeah with decent recording equipment
I've once heard a lawyer say when asked this question:
" My conscience is clean. Actually, mine is cleaner than yours. I''ve never used mine."
The defense's attorney job is to make sure the person has a fair trial, in that the law is being upheld by all other members of the court. It is a checks and balance system. It is not just an "innocent until probent guilty" but also "punishment fits the crime", and that everyone is informed of all of their legal options and rights.
In an ideal world sure…but the disgusting crooks who keep crime boss’, political scumbag and more out of prison deserve a special place in hell
Indeed, even if they're guilty of "crime A" (I'm not very creative here), that then shouldn't be e.g. used to imply that they must have done "crime B", nor let personal opinions on someone affect how they get treated.
This has got to be the most delusional comment on youtube
Not sure I understand exactly what your getting at. It seems like your suggesting that a defense attorney’s job is, in part, to make sure the punishment fits the crime. You have to assume some level of guilt if you are to determine that the punishment fits the crime. As part of the system you might hope that it all amounts to a system where the “punishment fits the crime” but that is not the directive of a defense attorney.any more than it's a jockeys job to make sure that the best horse wins the race. The jockeys job is to try and make the horse they are riding win and a defense attorney’s job is much the same except the levels of control they have over winning are much different to a jockey.
In terms of not assuming your clients guilt it, I might try to stretch that jockey analogy and say that you don't always know if your horse can win or not even if the odds are against them, sometimes an outsider wins the race but if you ride it like a loser then you almost ensure that it will lose.
Unless the defendant has money in which case a lawyer will defend them regardless of how heinous the crime. Knowingly taking the side of a dangerous criminal because they are paying you to keep them out of jail is lowly and pathetic. But yeah, keep idolizing our perfect “checks and balances system”
“Your honor, I’m just ballin”
ruclips.net/video/uBB2VLXetOE/видео.html 4
Crazy DIAMONDO
@@jkbruhbruh6358 the jojo fans are everywhere
@@jkbruhbruh6358 🗿
But at what cost?
Man, that was well delivered. It's like watching a monologue from a movie.
Was really inspirational for a person like myself who one day wants to become a Human Rights Lawyer
@@TagoMago2010 Definitely! Good luck on your law journey!
@@kingbernard_30 thanks man 🤝
"They may take our lives, but they may never take... OUR FREEDOM!"
He's a lawyer, these guys are the cream of the crop when it comes to speaking
In life: Sometimes we defend someone guilty having the doubts that they've been framed or forced to do something, but once we say their behaviour and true colours in other situations, we realise that we've been fools.
“Your honour, my client is not guilty, he was just in a silly goofy mood”
XDDD
He was just feeling quirky
This reminds me of Goofy's Trial by Filthy Frank
He's just a bit quirky
@@souppastes5519 they do get a bit quirky at night
This thing must be getting algorithmically boosted by Chris Chan's lawyer frantically rewatching it over and over
Court appointed attorneys in the US don't really give a shit. They put the bare minimum effort into a case even if there is evidence that might prove the accused innocent.
Nice Esix pfp
@@rashira9610
So many cases, you are lucky if they read through your first name.
@Dan N Chris chan, as awful and horrible a person she is, identifies as a women so please use she/her pronouns. Even the most depraved criminals deserve having their pronouns respected. In my opinion anyway. I'm drunk as I type this so if u disagree just put it down to me feeling pretty sentimental right now n dont come for me bc I am afraid of conflict please and thanksbxxxx
Dude why is esix sweating
To quote Ace Attorney: “believe in your client”
Regardless of guilt or innocence, you have to defend them with as much professionalism and determination as everyone else, and sometimes more so.
Allow me to present exhibit A against this: Chris Chan
@@NiceColorss I don’t know who that is…
I love Ace Attorney
Ed SMM2 and why exactly did you feel the need to write out the entire case and spoil it for people who didn’t play the games yet instead of just referencing the case number?
Until the prosecutor updated the autopsy report
This really touched me - thank you for advocating respect for justice in the true sense of the word
@@meraaicat That is a lovely comment to read. Thank you. Kind regards, Dominic
“Your honor, my client is not guilty because he put it on god”
LMFAOO
😂
Deadass?
@@coalkingryan881 deadass.
But your client is atheist
I’ve always heard and agreed with the same argument: When criminals lose their rights, all it takes for the rest of us is to be labeled as criminals, then we lose our rights as well.
People forget that anything can be a crime
@@eneco3965yeah the amount of selectively enforceable laws that we're all breaking all the time is crazy. Ties into race a lot too, and just the wild amount of power we give our cops. Ugh
@@M-qw9ru How’s that related?
Its not. Its just something that constantly haunts his thoughts. Lol
@M-qw9ru biological sex is much more complex than just 'male and female', its a rather facinating topic that I'd definitely suggest you look into. Though, I doubt you'll do that, as you don't care about biology or the fascinating world of genes, chromosomes and our brains, you only care to punch down on those you see as below you.
I wouldn't have thought of a better way to end his monologue. Eloquently spoken.
Why r u here
Everywhere I go, I see your face
dude ive seen u somewhere
“I’m gonna post something very slightly related to the video and just not watch it. Then I can do the same to another video and farm those sweet sweet subscribers like Justin Y!”
couldnt agree more
i'm a law student in Australia. i haven't taken my ethics course yet, but this struck a chord in me that i didn't know i had. i think i needed to hear this.
Am I the only one perplexed that the dude got 6 months in prison for stealing a frozen TV dinner?
Yea, i feel like im missing something from his story. People dont get 6 months of jail for stealing a frozen dinner 1 time.
@@pumpkin9916 obviously they do, theft is theft. Shoplifting is up to 6 months in prison and a fine of up to 1k.
I was just questioning that too.
Maybe mr. Smith was black
@@elliothammer9485 Bruh why you gotta bring race into this
The best I’ve heard it put is *“If you think someone is guilty, it is their right that you prove it true beyond a doubt. It’s not my job to make sure they’re moral; it’s my job to make sure the system does its part and keeps its integrity.”*
Agreed
It's not a case of "if you think someone is guilty". It's a case of "knowing someone is guilty" and trying to get him off which is against the law.
@@alexanderevans7426 Doesn’t matter. If they aren’t going to plead guilty then they will need defense. Pretty sure attorney client privilege covers whatever “knowing they are guilty” liability you think the attorney should suffer
That’s a good answer. Much better than the one in the video that missed the point slightly.
@@alexanderevans7426 (It's a case of "knowing someone is guilty" and trying to get them off which is against the law)
In the USA, a lawyer who refuses to defend a client because they know them to be guilty is themselves breaking the law and likely to be disbarred.
Ex:
You're defending a guy accused of murder. The prosecution has dubious evidence and there are holes in the stories of witnesses, etc. But then, the guy admits to you that he did it.
You'd still have to defend him. And if you were to tell anyone of what he admitted to you, it would be an illegal breach of confidentiality and it would be inadmissible.
Though if the lawyer knowingly allows false evidence/testimony, then that's illegal.
The real lesson here is that you can get 6 months for stealing a frozen meal
Imagine stealing a 4 dollar meal to get free health care, shelter, food and work for 6 months
They really need to work on their punishments
@@hollowollowyeet886 they should focus on rehabilitation. If someone’s stealing a frozen meal more often than not it’s cause they’re struggling for food. Simply placing them in a prison will leave them in the exact situation except even worse off
That’s still a thing even today. The highest class misdemeanor for shoplifting is up to 2 years.
150 euro fine in the Netherlands for doing this
This video taught me that people will believe in their own BS to commit an evil act that makes them money.
6 months in PRISON for a spaghetti? I’d be pissed at my lawyer
It shouldn't be possible to get 6 months for stealing a small amount of food in the first place. I don't even care what he'd done previously, he's clearly just trying to eat some food like. The system is a joke.
@@TraceurNath He stole from someone else. You never know if him stealing from someone else meant that they couldn't eat and they went hungry instead, because of the selfish actions of someone else. And that's why stealing and stuff like that will never be okay.
@@spy5765 He stole from a huge supermarket actually, it's detailed specifically in the video.
@@spy5765 get off RUclips fr
@@spy5765 i respect your position but aiding the notion that businesses are people has done so much harm legally over the decades. That business lost nothing. Their loss recouped in loss prevention insurance. That man lost 6 months of his life and much more once he was out for having a conviction. Guess he should have just starved to death.
The lawyer defending Christian Weston Chandler is going to need this video
I'm laughing to hide the fucking pain.
What did he do
@@user-wt8im2ro1p
She’s a trans woman that did *things* with her mother that has dimensia, obviously meaning she can’t consent.
@@user-wt8im2ro1p
Also RUclips didn’t like me answering that lol
@@reneebear3641 Chris is a he. It's been confirmed that he puts the trans lady facade just so he could get a chance to sleep with lesbians. And, well, knowing Chris, it's definitely that.
6mo in prison? For stealing a frozen meal? That's outrageous. Make him pay a fine or do service for the store, it'd cost the country a lot less and benefit the place he stole from. Maybe if he stole again then yeah, prison time, but starting off with 6mo is still insane..
Starting off with six months is insane, isn't it?
Makes you wonder what's more likely; someone actually got 6 months for shoplifting or a rather huge chunk of this story got left out???
this song title is perfect to explain why ruclips.net/video/VYOjWnS4cMY/видео.html
What's more insane is the person who serves 6 months for something so small, and they go out and do it again, and again, and again.
@@MaticJ29 "This is America" explains a story about a UK man in a UK court.
Ok.
Yeah, it’s a lie. No one gets 6 months for that.
Why did I get this recommended now, after the CEO incident?
I read this somewhere
So the job is to make sure that the persecution doesn’t take on charges that aren’t relevant. Basically, to just keep things fair
Pretty much. Despite what a person is guilty of, they have to have appropriate charges for the crime. Defense isn't just about getting a not guilty verdict, but also making sure the client is fairly tried in general.
yeah i mean there is some cases wher old woman "steals" a wood from a big company property, and she got 5 years in prison, while a corruptor or money laundrying case only got 3 month in prison. wtf
@@fadhlissyafiqab4078
This ODDLY sounds like Indonesian case kek.
Indonesian judicial system is pretty fucked up sometimes.
@@bimaakhmadi9466 it is lol hahahaha
I believe the word is "prosecution" not "persecution"
Prison? For stealing a ready meal?
I think it should be straight to the death penalty
@@goosegame3857 Chinese water torture.
A succulent ready meal?!?
ikr. could be repeated offense... iguess
@@REDACTED_7 maybe he assaulted a guard while escaping or something
This answer is very good, completely unbiased professionnalism, that's what you want from an attorney/lawyer (don't really know the difference between the two)
A lawyer doesn’t have to be someone who practices law but has learned and trained well about it. An attorney or “attorney at law” is someone who fills the criteria of a lawyer but also practices law in court. Or at least that’s what the internet says.
There really isnt a difference anymore but some Attorneys get butt hurt when you call them a lawyer
Solicitor vs barrister
There are a lot of lawyers in my family and I asked them the question and they said they can tell if someone is lying or not usually and if the client is lying to them they just don't take the case
The biggest liar wins.
I love your reasoning, sir, and I will share it with my classes along with what I always tell them. Even if a defense attorney is certain that his/her client is guilty it is much better to make the best case of defense for your client, forcing the prosecution to do their best. An airtight win by the prosecution when you have done your very best to defend someone’s innocence means less chance that the now guilty client will go free in appeals.
To add to this, the prosecution must put up the most airtight case possible so they can ensure they are doing their part to see the jury only convict when they have no reasonable doubt of the accused’s guilt. It MUST be proven. Accurately. Without bias. With precision. With extreme adherence to the law. Nothing less. Then, and only then, can they rest easier knowing that someone’s innocence was removed. Innocence is precious and a right. Until PROVEN guilty. When a great prosecutor and a great defense attorney and a great judge and a great jury do their jobs, the system works!
One thing that caught my interest was the security guards that witnessed him in one aisle. Not one not two but four. What were four security guards doing watching one aisle at the exact moment something happens?
That was what i was thinking too! I thought it would be like, one guard saw him acting suspicious around the aisle, then the one near the exit saw something bulging out of his pocket, and so on...
Then I was like, wait, all four saw the exact same thing? That sounds like horribly ineffective way to guard a store
@@letsreadtextbook1687 the case is 25+ years old so it's easy to misremember things, or he could be simplifying details just to get the point across.
The guy had to be caught so maybe the security guards called for backup.
@@letsreadtextbook1687 If he's a repeat offender, and had a history of being there with items missing then you want a good number of witnesses, the more that can confirm your view point the stronger your prosecution (or defense vice versa) You don't get a sentence like that unless there is substantial evidence that he was a repeating stealing at the store.
But if you are going to apprehend someone for a crime you need witnesses to avoid the 'He planted it on me'
They probably passed details immediately to police if he got out unchallenged (or forced his way out). Dominic gave the case in a summary as the point he was making that while handling a case which was pretty much clear cut, he still had to remain impartial.
* speaks to the jury* the defense rests
The real question to me is how do you get 6 months in prison for taking a frozen spaghetti
It's called a criminal past. Pretty obvious. The more dumb and evil shit you do the more time you get.
@@INDRIDCOLD83 Stealing spaghetti doesn’t quite fill in with evil , but I get what you mean
@@thatguy5779 Wdym we have murderers, rapists and then a close third is stealing food bro XD
I smell bulls#1t...don't you?
By not pleading guilty like he suggested lol
Can we talk about how it's pretty damn sad poor Mr Smith got 6 months for stealing a fucking microwave meal? That blows my mind.
His dumbass should have taken the plea deal rather than saying that it was a set up against him.
Ye but it was from M&S so probably cost about 200 quid
Lmao yeah what country is this? Somalia? Prison for stealing food? Wtf? A fine would be harsh lmao, half a year prison is incomprehensible. that's close to 1% of your entire life
If it was in America he's probably would've been shot
@@a_peridox what are you talking about?
If you wrote an audiobook about some of your encounters over the years (changing the names, of course) and performed the voices yourself, I think you would do very well. Your impression of the defendant was excellent. Thanks for the video Dominic
@DanBJim That is very dear of you to say. I wish I knew how to do an audio book! If so I would probably have a go at that! Kind regards, Dominic
Borat: “I am guilty”
6 months later...
“Naaahht”
Ok that's a worthy joke
Fuck yeah it is
@@a-10warthog78 soiled it.
@@a-10warthog78 You just shat all over this man's joke with your attempt at comedy, I went from laughing to mildly agitated.
@@mrgainz7252 what did he say, I can't see his comment
There’s only one proper answer:
Q. How do you defend someone that you think is guilty?
A. To the best of your ability.
You're arriving at the same answer he did except you're somehow still incorrect. If you KNOW they're guilty and are representing them I think you might be Saul Goodman.
@@CerpinTxt87
Nobody said ‘know’.
@@CerpinTxt87 Thats the bloody point: You never know. More generally (or philosophically) speaking there is not a single thing anyone knows about the world around us.
@@rangeldino2633 That (no one knows anything about the world) is not necessarily true. There are philosophical arguments against that statement (essentially you are stating the extreme anti-realist's position, realists have arguments against your views). If you want to learn about them and this debate, look it up. I am not capable of presenting good realist arguments well.
I agree with you that no one can ever be 100% certain of an accused's innocence/guilt either way.
@@CerpinTxt87 even if you know they’re guilty, so what? He still has a right to defend himself, it’s up to the judge and jury to determinate guilt or not.
“your honor, my client is not guilty, he is simply built different”
Thank you for this video. I have asked lawyers the same question many times, and they all skirt the question or say their client is innocent. I thought what was really happening was precisely what you stated. You took an oath to defend your client equally.
"Your honor, my client is not guilty. He is simply not like other girls."
LOLLL
Built different
*Other* girls?
very different from other girls
this is easily the best 1 in these comments
Was that really just 3 minutes? That felt like a 20 minute lesson
honestly
In the best way though
In the best way. Probably because he’s actually saying something and not just talking
Not sure that's a compliment
Damn Yoshi mains
As it should be, we forget that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, this should apply to everyone no matter the case
In the times we living in is guilty until proven innocent sadly
@@doejohn7548 Not quite. The more money, prestige, and PR you have plus race and gender considerations, the more likely it will be innocent until proven guilty. Poor Black/White/Hispanic males are more likely to be considered guilty until proven innocent compared to say Rich Asian/Indian/White females. And lets not forget appearance is a huge factor too, the more attractive you are, the higher chance of the public seeing you as innocent until proven guilty.
@@authenticinari-fox8164 makes sense im Hispanic so I get the race proportion of it as well as with the wealthy people too 💯
Men are guilty until proven otherwise vic versa for women
@@noexceptions8438 aww boohoo poor oppressed male
This is extremely interesting to hear! As a first year law student, its crazy that youtube recommended me to this.
As a nurse, this hits home. We take care of people we think very highly of (and that society admires), and those on the other end of that spectrum. It is not our job to judge our patients or rank them in some heirarchy of value, who is more worthy or less worthy of our care. Our job is to take care of everyone... to take care of everyone the same... in the way we would want our family taken care of, the way we would want to be cared for ourselves.
you should love to watch monster . It's basically about what u say
@@jeisonaguilar3530goated suggestion.
If only my hospital had nurses like you
I get your point but I'd like to ask you a question. I'm in hospital myself quite a lot, and I've seen this old man come in for the third time with a pretty severe injury. Each time it is because he is driving on his electric bycicle and is not wearing a helmet. Second time he got a head injury. One of the nurses mentioned this and this man and his wife got angry at the nurse for suggesting that it was maybe somehow his responsibility to wear protective gear (especially at their age).
In cases where people are 'responsible' for their own pain, do you still feel like helping them as much?
I've had another case of a woman who was laying next to me who didn't want to take her pills because she didn't trust them. Meanwhile, her condition was getting worse. Same question here.
It’s not the same thing.
I appreciate this. I'm a correctional psychologist and I have been told a whole bunch of utterly ridiculous things by inmates that turned out to true. I've also been told lots of lies, some ridiculous and others that seemed plausible. Once you start thinking you know what you should and shouldn't believe then you are a menace to yourself and everyone around you. I have devolved into a permanent state of polite agnosticism. I neither believe nor disbelieve anything at this point. I rather envy this guy.
Well put
What’s something ridiculous you were told that turned out to be true?
@@Vxjx15 I was once told a very involved story by an inmate about the absurd lengths the county jail went to to avoid taking him to a doctor to be seen for melanoma. It involved letters from his lawyer and orders from a judge and all kinds of delays. I just couldn't believe that the jail would take such risks with someone's health just to be petty, especially since they had no way to deny that they were aware of the person's diagnosis. But it was all true. I've also had guys tell me stories about turning themselves in for offenses that had not been detected that I thought were really self-serving and couldn't possibly be true that actually turned out to be totally true.
'polite agnosticism' - I like it
@@snowmonster42
omg this looks so interesting!! ive always loved watching series nd playing games in which prisoners talk or show their sessions w psychiatrists but i couldnt find much.. can u tell me more pls? like would it be too scary to deal w people who may have killed several people or committed worse crimes? or do they look like normal ppl nd js talk nd nothing is wierd? sorry for being so nosy lol
In short,
"How do you defend someone you think is guilty?"
"I don't judge someone guilty."
It is a trial. The trial is not over yet, ergo the defense is not guilty. It is not his job to determine if his defense is or is not guilty, that is for the jury to decide.
Just pretend he is not
@@omkarwaman4944 The point of the video was that he was SURE the person was guilty - and only months later he found out that he was probably innocent.
In the end of the day, if the prosecution can't convict a guilty person it is their fault for failing to prove it. The prosecution should take to curt only when they can prove said person is guilty (or at least think they can)
Exactly correct sir! It doesn't matter who someone is, what they've done, or whether they're lying to you or not. Everyone deserves their day in court if they so choose, and with that they deserve a proper defense. Imagine if a physician let you die because he thought you were a bad person. That would be wholly unacceptable. Lawyers provide an important public service.
"It's not my job to be the jury" "I have no idea who's guilty and who's not" Wise words... puts lawyers in a different light. And defending them as you would your own loved ones or how you'd want to be defended. As crazy as a case may look to us from the outside looking in, I think I understand that. You've got a job, and you're gonna do it to the height of your ability.
Yeah, there are so so so many cases where evidence can be misleading. Take every false accusation that has gone to court, won, and then in 30 years you find out that the evidence was fraudulent or that people actually did have a motive and an innocent man or woman lost 30 years of their lives for no reason or literally their lives.
The absolute worst idea that can enter a court room is mob mentality. Following the pack on what happened and what didn’t as fact has never ever been a reliable way to convict.
John Adams, one of the founders of the US, Defended all of the British involved with the Boston Massacre, arguing that you can't be a free society if some members are not protected under the law. It cost him a lot of support, and loyalty, but he deemed it more valuable that every person receive the same rights and process under the law as anyone else.
I think he got all of them acquitted or reduced except for one iirc, and his sentence was commuted to be served back in England.
@@3DOM_ i remember there was a guy who lost almost 12 years or more of his life because of something he didn't do
Yeah I do agree that people should have their rights, but I don't think it applies to every case. You're supposed to be telling what actually happen to your lawyers so they can defend you right? At some point the lawyers must know the truth if it's obvious.
@@mcromance257 why wouldn't it? Ideally you'd never ignite one way or the other. Justice is blind and what not. Wouldn't want to prejudice ones self.
This is the greatest example of Lawful Neutral I have ever seen.
What is lawful neuteral ? I’ve never heard this term before.
@@muggedinmadrid it refers to the Dungeons and Dragons alignment system that uses a two-axis method to abstractly define your general personality and worldview. These two axes are good-evil and lawful-chaotic with both having a neutral alignment between them, so by describing him as Lawful Neutral he is neutral on the good-evil scale but ascribes as lawful on the lawful-chaotic scale
The question in title remains unanswered! How do you defend somebody who you know for sure is guilty?
@@atheistfromaustria For a lawful neutral character, it doesn't matter if someone is guilty or not, good or evil. What matters is the law and the process. Everybody goes through it, nobody escapes it, nobody is denied it.
@@TheStrangerUpNorth9 dungeons and dragons ? That’s a game . Are you teasing me?
Defending a client they believe is guilty feels a lot more reasonable to me than an attorney prosecuting an innocent person
Right, there's no way to really know.
Especially for the vast majority of cases. Like what are the odds you're going to be defending someone you know is a psychopathic mass-killer or r*post or something? Very low. More often than not, you'll be defending normal people who have been hard done by against a system that is itching to sentence them. That doesn't mean they're innocent, but I think it's easier to process when you realize 9/10 times your client is just some guy or girl.
I don't like this video. I think the question isn't about some he-said, she-said with some corrupt security guards. The question is about people with strong physical evidence against them, and a history of violence, that you're sure did the crime.
But it's a dumb question anyways, because yes, everyone is entitled to a defense as they should be.
@@hansolo631 You've missed the point. Unlikely shit happens, and even if some guy is a serial violent offender, then if he wasn't really guilty of what he is being charged with, it means the guy who _was_ guilty is still out there, likely doing the same thing again and again. Pattern recognition is useful in everyday life but it isn't enough for criminal trials. The situation described in this video is already extremely unlikely, but there are other examples of similar things happening. Wal-Mart, for example, sabotaging their own self-checkout machines to falsely accuse people of stealing and then extort them out of money or else go against one of the biggest corporations in court.
Word. Laws are all manmade based on manmade morals.
Diddys lawyer furiously taking notes 😂😂😂
Lmfao I clicked on this vid to see if anyone else was thinking this
Spoken like a true lawyer. So convincing, I'll literally agree with whatever this man says...
Maybe you should be more diligent then. Not to say that this man is wicked or evil, but don't let yourself get fooled by someone who is and is pretending they're not
Cruz gomes you are missing the satire
@@dominicgallagher8930 you're missing the wisdom
@Sasquatch94 holy shit you’re crazy
@Sasquatch94 whos an edgy boi
My mom's friend is a defense lawyer, and she always said "I'm not here to judge if they are guilty or not, I'm just here to make sure their rights are defended"
If they’re hardened criminals (eg rapists terrorists murderers, child endangerment, etc.) they don’t deserve any rights.
@@vinaynayak1993 yes they do. As awful as they are, if we create a pit filled with people unworthy of rights, it is only a matter of time before trials just become about shoving people down that pit of "arbitrarily evil enough people". And if you really think what you propose will help stop terrorism, then you should realize terrorists will be the first ones to try to abuse the system you advocate for.
@@vinaynayak1993 Terrorists and murderers, hmm ... well what if they were mentally ill, and forced to commit terrorists acts? Shouldn't they face a slightly lesser punishment? What if it was a child who raped? What if they asked for consent from another minor, and then legally commited statutory rape? Should they get life in prison, they were only a child when it happened!
The basis of human rights are that EVERYONE gets them. Plus, your definition of "hardened criminals" is very... flimsy and therefore incredibly hard to go through with. There are plenty of circumstances that can happen that make people avoid the death penalty, even if they commit these acts. Your point does not make much sense to me.
freddy46 this is cute and all and sounds nice on paper. When your own family member is raped, murdered, or your own child is endangered, you’ll be in a courtroom hoping to rip the criminals guts off. Nice one though 👏 👏 👏
@@vinaynayak1993 so what should people wrongly accused of rape or terrorism do? How does your ideal system handle that?
"OBJECTION He's gaslighting me"
I remember taking criminal law in my sophomore year in college. I had a female public defender who started the first class with, “I know you are all thinking it. Someone just ask me the question.” Finally one student asked, “How can you defend criminals, especially those who you know are guilty?” She replied, “I know a lot of my clients are guilty. But it doesn’t matter what I think. The US Constitution states that everyone is entitled to a defense, regardless of the crime or the amount of evidence against them. I don’t believe that I am defending criminals. I believe that I am defending the Constitution.” To this day, that was the best answer I have ever heard and she had my respect. She was a great professor and I learned a lot from her.
I'm glad you mentioned she was female that was really relevant to the story
@@sowianskizonierz2693true 😢😎🥳🥰💀
@@sowianskizonierz2693bro, they're just being descriptive.
@@Interweb_Gremlinmore like pointless details
@@Interweb_Gremlin I don't actually care but I guarantee no one would say "male lawyer" just to be descriptive
Harry’s super cool. Livvy Roddy is me bird:)
“Your honor my client is not guilty because he said on my momma”
@@photns 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Hello! EveryoneToday, I am inviting you to come to Jesus Christ and be sure you are truly following God and doing his will by repenting and being immersed in the Baptism of life. Please come and be saved and see the truth and love of God and his mercy and kindness and for yourself. He can lead us on the path of light that leads to Heaven. I hope you will consider it. May God bless you! 🙂
@Mo No who?
@@chanceweslowski7792 ruclips.net/video/abLKoHDqIFQ/видео.html
"Your honor,my client is not guilty"
Source: "trust me bro"
@Raijin you're*
If somebody wants an additional reason for how to defend someone you think is guilty, I had the experience of going to a law firm for a brief internship or practicum, in my country is called different ("stagiu de practica la un birou de avocatură ") and so the lawyer in there had explained us that in his work, he doesn't defend people, a lawyer defends the rights that any human is entitled to. I really liked the way he spoke about this job and I believe this allows any lawyer, attorney, or any other similar profesionist to work objectively and be more effective
“What you in for bro?”
“Stouffers Mac n Cheese”
Honestly, his voice would fit right in to narrate any Guy Ritchie movie.
I like people with long brain. I have long amount of disl*kes btw. Why? Maybe people with short brain disl*ke because jealous of my long amount of subscr*bers. Please have long brain, dear fai
@@AxxLAfriku what the fuck are you on about
@@pikeman7351 the dude goes around to a lot of videos, and comments to get more people to click on their channel profile. They've done it before to videos I've watched =u=
He is charismatic as hell and he makes everything sound simple, reminds me of Bilbo Baggins
Bro he spent 2 minutes talking about mr smith, coming to the conclusion that he hadn't defended the guy properly and that he had been set up, spent 6 months in jail for nothing, and THEN HE DOESN'T EVEN EXPLAIN THE CONSPIRACY.
Just goes on to say "I don't know who's guilty".
WHY DID HE BELIEVE MR SMITH WAS RIGHT? WHY?
@@MrAykron Becausw Mr. Smith is a simple person and doesn't really have a reason to lie
@@MrAykron because he didn’t want to drag out the video with extra information that would leave the main idea. What the conspiracy was doesn’t matter. It can be as simple as they didn’t like how he looked, it doesn’t change the story.
Even if a person is known to be guilty beyond any doubt by everyone, they still deserve a defense against an disproportionate sentence.
I, as someone who has no experience in law, always see it as making sure that the police/prosecution did their job properly. If defense attorneys start to get lazy and think “this person did the crime, my defense doesn’t matter”, then the police will be lazy in collecting and presenting evidence, which is a scary thing to think about.
I’m a 20-year police supervisor. This is exactly why I have respect for defense attorneys. They keep us sharp and make sure we do our jobs properly better than anyone else can. I’m constantly thinking “If I was a defense attorney, what hole would I poke into this investigation?”
@Accurize2 That is a really profound and reassuring comment from someone in the police force. I have no doubt you are an excellent copper and I can only hope you keep up the good work whilst maintaining the sanguine and balanced views to currently hold. I hope you are well and Kind regards, Dominic
@@Bewellbeonethis comment you right is so charming and uniquely British. How lovely.
@@saarza9991his service? He’s not a yank, bud. 😂
@@scrimmo Comport yourself.
if my teachers at school told me this, i would be extremely bored. but when this guy teaches me something, i'm genuinely interested and do my best to pay attention.
well , its his job to make you pay attention and he is doing it great tbh
@@hamzas3263 he's PERFECT for his job. he is also well-spoken and his voice is very soothing
Bro how is nobody gonna mention he got SIX months for stealing a frozen meal…
I was going to ask the same thing. Like that can’t have been worth more than $5
That's what happens when you don't have money, sadly
Capitalism baby
i actually researched this a little bit and found out that only in 2014 was the law changed in england to include shoplifting of lower value items, which fits this case and would have been a MAXIMUM of six months. however, this happened 25+ years ago, which as far as i can tell would mean that the maximum would be seven YEARS maximum (which comes from an act made in 1968). considering that, this guy got off with a pretty mild sentence. he also seemingly didn't plead guilty or show any signs of why he would shoplift (mental issues, financial issues, etc.), otherwise the sentence would have been lowered.
this is assuming the case was in england which i can't be sure of.
It was a really BIG frozen meal
this was such an amazing video 🎉 it was so inspiring and you’re such a good storyteller! i was hooked lined and sunk. i got chills, you’re spreading an amazing message 😊
@@fartlord9875 That is so kind of you to say and I am pleased you enjoyed the video. Hope you are well and Kind regards, Dominic
Mr. Smith got 6 months in prison for _stealing a frozen meal???_ Even if he had been guilty, that's absolutely bonkers. That he was taken to trial at all is wild. Poor guy.
EDIT: Starting to get dragged into internet discussion. Am gonna disengage for my own sanity. Proceed with caution!
But he stole it from Marks & Spencer's. That is not just food, _it's M&S food._
He’ll have likely had previous convictions for whatever else, may have even had a suspended sentence already.
@@jamesmacdonald5881Did you not watch the video? The story about the security guards framing him was actually true. I don’t see why we would assume he had previous convictions.
reminds me of a story my mum sometimes tells me about working as a court usher, one time she met a young man who was being taken to court over stealing a *toothbrush* from a supermarket, if i have to remember i think it was sainsbury's. i mean come on.
@@j.prt.979because he wouldn’t have gotten such a harsh sentence if he wasn’t previously convicted