This actually forced a law change that made international lawyers be able to represent him.
No shit, who would want to represent these fucking sorry excuses of a humang being
Let Allah represent them.
If he doesn’t show, I guess that means He agrees with whatever sentence they’re given. Allah Akbar, after all.
Have Iran send a defender
what a waste of time and money to treat terrorists as human beings
That seems like a very bad idea
To the gallows then
No surprise there, hopefully they will receive death penalty
It is slightly more complicated than just the title.
Definitely, there is moral difficulty representing these. This and the type of horrors that these people inflicted required a specialist defence and not something that the public defence can take on in good conscience.
Your honor, my client pleads not guilty by upsie daisies and going goblin mode
HA
put em in a jail with מני ממטרה playing for 24 hours a day
I’m sure one of the thousands of antisemite protesters from Europe or North America would gladly come represent them.
> For several reasons, lawyers should defend their clients vigorously regardless of whether or not they believe them to be innocent.
> People accused of crimes should be defended by lawyers to improve the accuracy of the factfinding process. The adversary system is not necessarily a perfect means of adjudicating facts, but changing to any other kind of decisionmaking process would involve virtually insurmountable problems. The use of lawyers also benefits defendants in that it ensures the use of checks on such procedures as searches. In addition, it makes a symbolic statement that we are compassionate people and that even the worst people are entitled to have one person to help them.
> None of these reasons is affected by whether the defendant is guilty. In fact, the symbolic value of having an attorney represent a defendant may be increased when we know the accused is guilty. Moreover, we should expect lawyers to handle the defense in the same way regardless of their views about the client’s guilt. Otherwise, the judge or jury would serve no purpose. Even when the defendant has stated guilt to the lawyer, the lawyer should retain the symbolic role of the defendant’s only friend. Otherwise, the lawyer becomes to some extent a spy for the prosecution.
> The attorney’s role of representation of a guilty client may properly include helping the client plead guilty and arguing for a light sentence, engaging in plea bargaining, invoking legal defenses like double jeopardy, and checking the prosecution’s evidence. However, defense attorneys must not put perjurious witnesses on the stand. Except in these narrow and unusual circumstances, lawyers should provide their clients with a vigorous defense.
(I’m happy to hear from people familiar with the *Israeli* legal system and who can articulate why their normal public defender rules — which apply to all kinds of murderers and rapists, etc — shouldn’t apply.)
A defence lawyer really don’t believe in “innocent to proven guilty” or the rule of law and the right to a fair trial if they refuse to represent any client for reasons as above.
I can understand you don’t want certain cases as the evidence is too gross or similar. But that’s different as I see it.
You don’t have to like someone to represent them. You do not have to think they were right or innocent. You just have to make sure no one can say they didn’t have a fair trial.
“Your honor oppressed people eventually built up enough oppression points to make widespread and deliberate massacres of unarmed civilians justified, are we just going to forget what happened in the late 1940s?” – actual defense i keep hearing (not a general anti-Palestinian defense but defense of the deliberate Hamas Oct 7 attacks specifically)
Sounds like the perfect use of the Law AI bot. It’s in the closet behind the vacuum.
It’s not just that lawyers won’t represent them, it’s that people are calling for “some other” form of justice than criminal law to deal with “terrorism.”
This can only mean lower standards of evidence and less due process.
Modern law exists to attempt to reduce the role of emotion in the administration of justice. As an American, I can tell you that no good comes from eroding due process in favor of “I just know they’re guilty” Wild West methods. Guantanamo Bay has done this country no good.
I’m sorry but this is a terrible take from attorneys who somehow don’t understand the Justice system. The entire point of the system is for terrible people to be given a fair trial so we can know they are terrible and at the same time know we treat people fairly. It is simply that in the end, fair treatment for a mass murderer may be death. I am Jewish but many in Israel have lost sight of the idea of being more righteous than the people they hate.
Well they didn’t appoint anyone to represent the people they slaughtered so I’d say that’s fair. Why even give them trials?
A good lawyer doesn’t let their personal opinions affect their work. Unfortunately, random crazy people don’t care. It would be a mark that would follow you for your life in Israel if you did it.
24 comments
Don’t blame them
Would you?
Just call Satan to defend them. It’s his minions after all.
It’s the same as Eichmann Trial – no Israeli Lawyer wanted to represent him – [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_trial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_trial)
This actually forced a law change that made international lawyers be able to represent him.
No shit, who would want to represent these fucking sorry excuses of a humang being
Let Allah represent them.
If he doesn’t show, I guess that means He agrees with whatever sentence they’re given. Allah Akbar, after all.
Have Iran send a defender
what a waste of time and money to treat terrorists as human beings
That seems like a very bad idea
To the gallows then
No surprise there, hopefully they will receive death penalty
It is slightly more complicated than just the title.
Definitely, there is moral difficulty representing these. This and the type of horrors that these people inflicted required a specialist defence and not something that the public defence can take on in good conscience.
Your honor, my client pleads not guilty by upsie daisies and going goblin mode
HA
put em in a jail with מני ממטרה playing for 24 hours a day
I’m sure one of the thousands of antisemite protesters from Europe or North America would gladly come represent them.
With a hat tip to John Adams’ representation of the British soldiers who did the Boston Massacre: That’s not how that [should work](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/defending-guilty-people)!
> For several reasons, lawyers should defend their clients vigorously regardless of whether or not they believe them to be innocent.
> People accused of crimes should be defended by lawyers to improve the accuracy of the factfinding process. The adversary system is not necessarily a perfect means of adjudicating facts, but changing to any other kind of decisionmaking process would involve virtually insurmountable problems. The use of lawyers also benefits defendants in that it ensures the use of checks on such procedures as searches. In addition, it makes a symbolic statement that we are compassionate people and that even the worst people are entitled to have one person to help them.
> None of these reasons is affected by whether the defendant is guilty. In fact, the symbolic value of having an attorney represent a defendant may be increased when we know the accused is guilty. Moreover, we should expect lawyers to handle the defense in the same way regardless of their views about the client’s guilt. Otherwise, the judge or jury would serve no purpose. Even when the defendant has stated guilt to the lawyer, the lawyer should retain the symbolic role of the defendant’s only friend. Otherwise, the lawyer becomes to some extent a spy for the prosecution.
> The attorney’s role of representation of a guilty client may properly include helping the client plead guilty and arguing for a light sentence, engaging in plea bargaining, invoking legal defenses like double jeopardy, and checking the prosecution’s evidence. However, defense attorneys must not put perjurious witnesses on the stand. Except in these narrow and unusual circumstances, lawyers should provide their clients with a vigorous defense.
(I’m happy to hear from people familiar with the *Israeli* legal system and who can articulate why their normal public defender rules — which apply to all kinds of murderers and rapists, etc — shouldn’t apply.)
A defence lawyer really don’t believe in “innocent to proven guilty” or the rule of law and the right to a fair trial if they refuse to represent any client for reasons as above.
I can understand you don’t want certain cases as the evidence is too gross or similar. But that’s different as I see it.
You don’t have to like someone to represent them. You do not have to think they were right or innocent. You just have to make sure no one can say they didn’t have a fair trial.
“Your honor oppressed people eventually built up enough oppression points to make widespread and deliberate massacres of unarmed civilians justified, are we just going to forget what happened in the late 1940s?” – actual defense i keep hearing (not a general anti-Palestinian defense but defense of the deliberate Hamas Oct 7 attacks specifically)
Sounds like the perfect use of the Law AI bot. It’s in the closet behind the vacuum.
It’s not just that lawyers won’t represent them, it’s that people are calling for “some other” form of justice than criminal law to deal with “terrorism.”
This can only mean lower standards of evidence and less due process.
Modern law exists to attempt to reduce the role of emotion in the administration of justice. As an American, I can tell you that no good comes from eroding due process in favor of “I just know they’re guilty” Wild West methods. Guantanamo Bay has done this country no good.
I’m sorry but this is a terrible take from attorneys who somehow don’t understand the Justice system. The entire point of the system is for terrible people to be given a fair trial so we can know they are terrible and at the same time know we treat people fairly. It is simply that in the end, fair treatment for a mass murderer may be death. I am Jewish but many in Israel have lost sight of the idea of being more righteous than the people they hate.
Well they didn’t appoint anyone to represent the people they slaughtered so I’d say that’s fair. Why even give them trials?
A good lawyer doesn’t let their personal opinions affect their work. Unfortunately, random crazy people don’t care. It would be a mark that would follow you for your life in Israel if you did it.