Bestoutwest":x0i9mdp9 said:
Best, I have read articles about her before, and her beliefs don't align with mine. I am not anti-death-penalty (although I think we have to be extremely careful with it--probably far more so than we've historically been, in terms of making sure it's not applied to some groups more than others). That said, she can only do what the law allows her to do--advocate zealously for her client, the same as you would want in any case you had (civil or criminal). Vanity Fair uses a lot of hyperbole (helps sell magazines), but (from a quick read) the article doesn't show that she has ever done anything which is not permissible under the law (nor have I ever read that about her). Rather, she requires that the prosecution and cops bring their "A" game.
In other words, there is no room for her to "impose her own beliefs," unless you also are willing to accept as a given that
other public defenders are free to
like the death penalty, don't care if their clients hang and
purposefully provide incompetent representation.
Quite frankly, if we had very strong, equitable representation for
all of those accused of capital crimes with the possible death penalty at stake, I think many Americans would feel less squeamish about the death penalty....
Either that or we need to require rich people charged with crimes to use public defenders as well. (Don't get me started on the OJ verdict)...
There is an old saying, Hard cases make bad law. A corollary (of sorts) applied here means that these very tough cases, like the Tsarnaev case (where we would all gladly string up the little ^%$@!) are exactly where we see what we, as a people, as a society, and as a system of governance and justice, are made of. And of course, he has been sentenced to death 9over the protests of the parents of one of the three victims, which does amaze me).