Why? If you knew 100% someone was guilty, why would you defend them? Isn't the point of the "strong defense" that we haven't established guilt? If someone is guilty, then give them the consequence of the crime, unless you think having some guilty people get away with it (at substantial cost) is in the best public interest?
I understand providing a way to determine guilt and innocence without bias, but if everyone knows someone is guilty, isn't trying them and/or defending them just a waste of resources, with the best outcome being "same as plea bargain" and worst possible outcome being "goes free without punishment, despite having committed crime"?
It’s a token effort to catch the false positives. If you put in no effort you’d start to become overconfident in the guilty assessment and an increasingly larger percent of defendants will be considered guilty even though more of them will in fact be innocent.
Plus there is more to it than guilty/not guilty and the state should not be permitted to take shortcuts.
Our whole concept of justice enshrined in the US Constitution is that the truth must be ascertained by a jury of your peers from a fair presentation of the evidence and arguments in a court of law. And it is entirely to prevent people from being "rubber stamped" guilty and discarded. At its heart the trial is about ascertaining the truth, with the understanding that the verdict has some powerful gravity for everyone involved.
> If you knew 100% someone was guilty, why would you defend them?
Ask defense attorneys, I think you'll be surprised at the number of "yes" responses. How do you establish that "everyone knows" someone is guilty? You're assuming the conclusion as true and then reasoning from there. Put yourself in the shoes of a defendant who "everyone knows" is guilty. Would you not still want a robust and aggressive defense?
Ok I get what people are saying, but you are describing the common case, where guilt is in question. I'm talking about the parent comment which is saying "even if someone is known to be guilty they still deserve defense." You're talking about the common case -- where there is doubt to guilt and/or someone maintains innocence. Do you also believe someone who admits guilt should still be defended (e.g. hide this fact from the jury and proceed as though they didn't admit to the crime)? The only reason for defending someone is because they may be innocent, there is no advantage to excusing a guilty person. Or do you believe there is an advantage to excusing the guilty?
I also understand why we have our current system, and that there may be false positives, I'm merely commenting on the fact that we should not defend those that are 100% known to be guilty (and I'm not claiming that its easy to ascertain, but that in cases where people plead/confess, maybe its for the best).
Let's enter fantasy land for a moment and assume that we even can ascertain whether someone is "100% known to be guilty" without a trial. Say we have a crystal ball that we can just ask. That person still is entitled to representation to ensure that all the proper procedure was followed (was the law somehow broken when the crystal ball was consulted? was the crystal ball accurately calibrated and configured? is it a real crystal ball and not a knock-off that always says "guilty"?).
Even if there was no crystal ball! The defendant admitted and signed a confession. He still needs a defense. Was the confession forced or obtained under duress? Did the defendant know what he was confessing to?
And even if there was no crystal ball, the defendant confessed voluntarily and understood fully what he confessed to, cooperatively admitted everything to the point where there is zero chance of reasonable doubt. He still needs a defense. Who is going to ensure that a fair punishment is imposed? Without a defense attorney and proper procedure, what stops the judge from simply imposing the maximum sentence for everyone?
I understand providing a way to determine guilt and innocence without bias, but if everyone knows someone is guilty, isn't trying them and/or defending them just a waste of resources, with the best outcome being "same as plea bargain" and worst possible outcome being "goes free without punishment, despite having committed crime"?