Yes, no shortage of hard things.
If you have to choose between tending to let the guilty go free or tending to convict the innocent I probably prefer the former, even without the death penalty.
From past conversations with lawyers I think one of central concepts is respect for or trust in 'the law'. If you have a reasonable belief in the system then you're more likely to accept the morally questionable aspects of it as necessary for the greater good.
If on the other hand you view the law as something made by and for the rich and powerful, and full of loopholes; then individuals perhaps become more responsible for their particular parts in the process.
I think the fact that this case ever went before a judge supports the latter viewpoint. The county paid good money hoping that (what most consider to be) a plainly unjust argument would be supported. Was it an isolated decision made by a fool, or do they have a better appreciation of the nature of the law than we do?
If you have to choose between tending to let the guilty go free or tending to convict the innocent I probably prefer the former, even without the death penalty.
I agree. I do not think it's morally justifiable to allow society to punish innocent people under the guise of catching all the guilty ones.
As for the nature of law...I think it's most likely that the law is written and handled in a way that's generally beneficial to "the state", which is a kind of nebulous thing to say; at the same time, the court has to act as agents for the people against some actions the state take that are obviously harmful or unjust (as in the case linked). It makes for an odd juxtaposition, particularly when you consider how Supreme Court nominees are chosen (and this is a good time to remind everyone that not one justice on the Supreme Court was a defense attorney; all were prosecutors working for the US government in some capacity). Of course legislature makes the laws in the first place, but even to the courtroom itself, everything it slanted toward the prosecution.
I think of some particular procedures that are just obviously beneficial to the state to the point of being unfair in an allegedly impartial procedure. The defense cannot call police officers to testify on behalf of their client; any prosecutor will object and argue that it's hearsay, and the judge will side with them. The prosecution has the near-limitless resources of their respective state or federal government behind them, while the defendant must either rely on their own wealth or charity to provide for his defense. Police officers are given incentives to have "closed cases", which means cases turned over to the prosecutor's office that the police are done with; this encourages finding a perpetrator for a given crime, but not necessarily the perpetrator. The state handles all relevant evidence themselves - and yes, there are procedures for collecting and documenting evidence to ensure nothing is tampered with, but there are cases where obvious tampering has gone on with little to no consequences for the alleged offending officers (The Netflix special Making a Murderer has some instances of this as well in the Stephen Avery rape/murder case). Judges and prosecutors and police often work together in many instances (issuing of warrants, for instance), granting them familiarity that defense attorneys would likely have less reason to have. There are more, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.
So I think, at least in terms of criminal proceedings, it's simply slanted hard toward the state against the defense. I don't think being wealthy (outside of being able to hire a better defense) gives you any kind of protection from that. I think having connections to government officials and senators and the like will give you protection, of a kind, but that has to do with corruption in government more than individual wealth affecting trial outcomes (although the wealthy have the edge there, too).
Specifically I meant "I respect the lawyers who take on the cases where they are likely to be vilified, harassed, or worse for defending their client."
That's a hard thing, because the law is not written in a vacuum. It's meant to have some amount of "common sense" applied to it. For instance, in this particular case, the lawyer for Orange County is arguing that, because there is no statue explicitly forbidding the introduction of false evidence or committing perjury for social workers, they should not be held accountable criminally for those actions. This is why the judge is incredulous about it, because it's obviously not OK, and there's basically no reason to believe that it would be OK.
And some of the reply from Judge Trott
So I suppose in this instance, I don't respect the defense itself, but he is trying the best he can, and simply from a standpoint of "is this guy a professional" I can say he tried, even if he failed.
Other cases are harder; I mentioned the Casey Anthony case before. I remember watching some of the defense's closing arguments on TV. I thought Mr. Baez made his case very well - his assertion being that the state had failed to adequately prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that she was guilty. And the jury agreed. During the case and in some of the drama surrounding her afterward, I am believe it's more likely she did commit that murder than she didn't. But she was found not guilty, and there was no "bogus defense" like pleading "temporary insanity" or something like that.
And then there are even further hard things. Take the OJ Simpson murder trial. At least one juror has said, filmed for a TV special, that they explicitly voted "not guilty" as payback for the Rodney King result (where he was beaten by several officers and 3 of the four were found not guilty on all charges and 1 found guilty only on assault with a deadly weapon). No doubt Mr. Cochrane did his best as their attorney; turning the matter into a racial issue and handling it well, along with tons of blunders by the prosecution (like the glove fiasco) all contributing. Whether those claims are true, everyone and their mother knows OJ killed those two people. His defense did the best they could, and the prosecution was tactically terrible, and at least one juror was not going to vote him guilty regardless of the evidence.
So it's a really hard thing. I think defense lawyers are critical and important to the legal system. I think they should do the best they can, even if they are defending guilty people. I think you can make a reasonable argument that, by having a strong defense in the corner of someone who's allegedly done a crime, the accusations against him, and the evidence, must be even stronger; a reasonable bar if we are going to deprive someone of their liberty or potentially their life (I live in a death penalty state, for instance). It's important to remember that the deck is stacked against defendants as well; many particular laws and procedures just make things easier for the state and harder for the defense. So having a competent attorney is certainly something that is desired, or even necessary in my eyes.