If you either don't understand or don't like the adversarial system of justice, do something about the one or the other.
Quote:The renewed fuss over Hillary Clinton’s defense of a man accused of child rape in 1975 is a familiar, if politicized, version of what criminal lawyers call the “cocktail party question.” We hear it all the time: “How can you represent those people?” Those of us who are feminists and criminal defense lawyers are sometimes asked a variation of the question: “How can you represent rapists?”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politi...ht_to.html
Clinton has pointed out that she took the case at the request of both a prosecutor and judge. As a matter of professional ethics, Clinton did the right thing in accepting a court appointment to represent an indigent charged with a repugnant crime, and her representation is not an endorsement of the client’s conduct.
As Clinton told the British online network Mumsnet, “I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability, which I did.”
Clinton could have offered plenty of other reasons for taking the case: Able defense lawyers are essential to the proper functioning of the adversary system, to ensure equal access to justice, and ultimately to protect all of our constitutional rights. She could have also pointed to Justice Byron White’s explanation of the defense lawyer’s unique ethical duty to “defend his client whether he is innocent or guilty … [and] put the state’s case in the worst possible light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the truth.”
Because of her exemplary pretrial advocacy, the case did not go to trial and Clinton did not have to face the alleged victim. This was probably a good thing for her client, as Clinton seems to have felt ambivalent about the case. She said in an interview that she initially resisted the appointment, and she made a sardonic reference to the accuracy of polygraph tests—because her client managed to pass one.
I wish she had kept those feelings to herself to protect lawyer-client confidentiality.
But Clinton should not have to apologize for her defense of her client, or for feeling proud of the outcome: a plea to a lesser charge and short jail sentence. She is being taken to task for “laughing” about the case in an interview from the 1980s, when she was first lady of Arkansas. But nowhere in that interview does she laugh at the alleged victim. She laughs when she describes her client’s polygraph results and prosecutors bungling the case by destroying evidence. This is familiar criminal defense gallows humor.
According to press accounts, the case fell apart because of a combination of factors: contradictory statements by the complainant, prosecutorial incompetence, and “aggressive” defense advocacy.
But it is wrong to call Clinton’s thorough investigation of the case, including sending evidence to a forensics expert, overly aggressive. Likewise, developing a viable defense theory—that a troubled child might not be a credible witness—is not at all improper.
Clinton was right to pursue her client’s interest no matter the charge or her own misgivings. She understood that she could not be both lawyer and judge.
There is no contradiction in Hillary Clinton fighting for the rights of women and children and also ensuring that those accused of crime are well-represented.
1
