Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Why do you assume the defendant is guilty? What if he's innocent, but your refusal to help provide a strong defense causes him to be found guilty? Why do you presume to do the judge and jury's job for them, but with no access to the facts or judicial procedure?

If prosecutors can ensure that a strong defense is impossible simply by accusing someone of an appropriately heinous crime, then the criminal justice system has failed. Please don't be complicit in that.



Why do you presume to do the judge and jury's job for them, but with no access to the facts or judicial procedure?

My other fear is that what happens when, with access to the facts or judicial procedure, I determine that the defendant actually is guilty.

Please don't be complicit in that.

We'll see.


My other fear is that what happens when, with access to the facts or judicial procedure, I determine that the defendant actually is guilty.

And when you determine that the defendant is innocent?

If you were falsely accused of the same crime, what would you think of someone who acts as you're proposing?


Your duty, it seems, would be to bring some piece of Truth to the proceedings.

If they are guilty, it may help convict them, but if they are innocent, it may help exonerate them.

Regardlessly, bring Truth to the proceedings and leave your biases and opinions (valid or not) outside.


If you get a call back, be very up front with this attitude so they can look elsewhere to retain a professional.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: