I'd give the Devil benefit of law

This morning I found news stories about two attacks on lawyers, in Winnipeg and Montreal. This post is only tangentially related to them, but it’s what set me off. Since I know nothing about these specific cases I’ll try to defend their whole profession instead.

First I just need to state as a disclaimer that this post is heavily influenced by, perhaps plagiarized from, another thing I read. It’s in that grey area where “Ghostbusters” was plagiarizing “I Want a New Drug” but Theory of a Deadman somehow isn’t plagiarizing Nickelback. It was either an article or an essay or a blog post, written by someone or another, maybe five or ten or fifteen years ago. I’d cite it if I could find it.

There’s this thing in police procedurals where lawyers are viewed exclusively as an obstacle. When a suspect “lawyers up” by asking for representation, it’s considered a sign of guilt. It means the noble protagonists have found the right guy, and now all they have to do is prove it… as task which becomes harder and harder as the lawyer gets involved. All of the sudden they can’t just try to force a confession.

I don’t watch police procedurals much anymore, but I saw something similar in the new Daredevil series. In this show the protagonists are lawyers, but they will only defend clients who are innocent… something that must be vanishingly rare, since they have trouble finding clients.

It’s a nice idea, to only defend the innocent. But it also really pisses me off whenever I see it, because I’m reminded of the Boston Massacre (this is the part mentioned in that other article I’m plagiarising). The soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre had trouble finding lawyers, but they convinced future president John Adams to defend them. Even though he risked sabotaging his future career, he thought it was too important that nobody be charged without getting the chance for a fair trial, whether guilty or innocent.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Back when Dzokhar Tsarnaev was captured, there was considerable delay in getting him a lawyer. There was talk, in fact, of not letting him have a lawyer at all. Just shipping him off to Gitmo never to be heard from again. Finally a local magistrate snuck into his hospital room, interrupted the interrogation, and gave him the Miranda warning, telling him that he had the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. All of the sudden there needed to be a real trial, a fair trial in front of a jury of his peers.

I’ve mentioned before that I disagreed with the jury composition and the sentencing guidelines, but I’m happy that at least the trial took place, and that he had a lawyer there with him. Sometimes the rule of law is the only defence we have.