[macintologist]

Let's take a look at both Defenders and Prosecuters at their worse.

A defender fights hard and keeps a cold-blooded murderer from being locked up.

A prosecutor finds their suspect and prosecute him to their fullest extent until an innocent man is locked up.

Which is worse? A murderer getting off free, or an innocent man getting the death penalty?

This is why I think prosecutors are inherently evil. Not all of them of course, but their potential mistake taken to its full logical conclusion is far worse than a defender's potential "wrongdoing".

[Big Mac]

Letting a guilty individual go free is evil, but imprisoning an innocent individual is a greater evil.

[Dork.]

What are you on trial for, then?

Actually, the answer is that our adversarial legal system relies on lawyers on both sides being advocates for their clients, in some cases the only advocate. In order for our system to work, there must be a prosecution and a defense, no matter how clear-cut the case may be. Even an axe-wielding psychopath who hacks through a Sunday School is entitled to a defense, and even the community grandma who bakes pies for sick children must be prosecuted if she is accused of breaking the law.

The question you're really asking is are unethical prosecutors more harmful than unethical defense attorneys. You're free to argue that the term "unethical" in "unethical lawyer" is redundant if you wish....

[Dakar²]

Lawyers are paid to win, not be right.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by Dakar� 

Lawyers are paid to win, not be right.

Which makes all lawyers equally evil.

But hey, someone's gotta do it.

[Dakar²]

Well, its a flaw inherent in the system.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The defense has the automatic presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty on their side.

A prosecutor has no such presumption in their favor. In theory, they must work harder to prove their case- there's no scoring a conviction by default.

That doesn't mean the defense can just sit on their ass and let the presumption of innocence be their only argument, however. They still must actually defend their client.

To the extent an innocent man is 'proven' guilty, an improper defense shares greatly in the blame.

[Uncle Skeleton]

If TV is to be believed, the prosecutor is required to have a good-faith basis for believing the defendant is guilty, but the defense atourney is required to do the opposite, to ignore any misgivings he might have and defend his client to the utmost.

Besides which, if a killer is let free to kill other victims, it's worse than an innocent man being convicted. Why? Multiple victims, oversight (and public record), and reversibility (barring the death penalty, which of course is many years delayed, whereas further murders are not).

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Lawyers are paid to win, not be right.

The prosecution is paid to be right.

(see §160 StPO in Germany)

[subego]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

This is why I think prosecutors are inherently evil. Not all of them of course, but their potential mistake taken to its full logical conclusion is far worse than a defender's potential "wrongdoing".

I think the key is that it takes more responsibility to be a "good" prosecutor.

And yes, in general, prosecutors are the lowest form of life.

[macintologist]

Think of it, in a case where the punishment could be the death penalty, the prosecution finds their suspect, and prosecutes him/her to the utmost, not caring whether or not they could be sending an innocent person to the death chamber.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Yes but all defenders are required to not care whether they're on the right side, while prosecutors are required to care. You can compare the "worst case" from each side, but by your definition (one who doesn't care whether their side is right), all defenders are the worst case, but the only prosecutors that are are the ones that aren't doing their job.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

If a case has even gone to trial in the first place, then there must be enough evidence for a prosecutor to have a case. The defense has already had yet another benefit in that many times there's not enough evidence to score a conviction, and the case may be thrown out before it ever sees a courtroom.

The greater responsibility is on the defense to actually mount an adequate defense.

Blaming the prosecutor for "caring" enough to do the defense's job for them is pure bullshit.

While a defense attorney may find themselves defending someone who might possibly be guilty, I'd say the worse situation is a defense attorney who is defending someone that evidence clearly shows not guilty (or at least doesn't exist to prove guilt), yet that doesn't have the skill to actually do their job right and DEFEND the person. Such an unskilled defense attorney should NOT be in a position of defending people, and should remove themselves from such a position. Money isn't any excuse either. A defense attorney should at all levels be damned good at their job, period.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Think of it, in a case where the punishment could be the death penalty, the prosecution finds their suspect, and prosecutes him/her to the utmost, not caring whether or not they could be sending an innocent person to the death chamber.

The prosecutor doesn't find the suspect, the police do. They gather evidence to support an arrest. The prosecutor presents that evidence to the grand jury, which hands up the indictment or votes no bill. Then the case proceeds to trail or doesn't based on that. You make it sound like

To say that prosecutors are "inherently evil" is a rather ridiculous statement, don't you think? Of course you are going to have some with no scruples, I mean we are talking about lawyers here, but you are also talking about lawyers that are serving to protect the well being of the citizenship and in doing so are passing up the far more lucrative positions available to an attorney. Just as you have attorneys that work in low paying public defender offices to ensure that everyone's rights are protected and the get proper defense. Both sides have their idealists, no doubt. I would think that someone who puts the rule of law above personal profit hardly fits the definition of "evil".

And what is it with labeling entire groups as evil lately? That's just stupid.

[Ron Goodman]

Jack McCoy is a scumbag????