That's a strong appeal to emotion, but it's a fundamental misunderstanding of how the justice system works. The repercussions of what you want extend far beyond this isolated case.
If we forbid some people from getting a fair trial (yes, including the part about sentencing) but not others, then the adversarial justice system simply will not work. It would be ripe for misuse through discrimination, prejudice, and all sorts of manipulation. I'm sure there are cases where attorneys have thought a client was guilty when they weren't, and cases where attorneys have pushed innocent clients into guilty pleas for lighter sentences, and cases where false accusations of heinous crimes have been fuelled by racism or classism or whatever form of oppression. Additionally, one of the major roles of a defense lawyer is to ensure their client gets a fair sentence: whether that's rehabilitation, community service, or a shorter time in prison. Sometimes this is abused - for example, all the wealthy people who can basically commit whatever crimes they want because they can get a good lawyer. But it's still necessary, because without it, anyone could be thrown in jail for anything.
We cannot arbitrarily decide that some people have this right to an attorney who fully represents their interests in the eyes of the law, while others can be denied it because they're 'just that evil'. Even if you want to make an exception for some given cases, how do we decide who is "bad" enough not to get a fair trial and who isn't? How do we decide which crimes are bad enough that the people accused don't even get a chance at justice? We'd need a trial for the trial. Or we might as well not bother with trials at all, and just round up everyone who is 'totally obviously guilty' and shove them in jail.
I completely understand why this case and this crime in particular has given you such a strong reaction, and I agree that the outcome of the trial was wrong, but you're blaming the wrong people and finding the wrong 'solutions'.
If there's something wrong with how this trial was carried out, then we should change the law, not get rid of the lawyer. Maybe have harsher minimum sentences for that sort of crime, regardless of the defendant's plea. Maybe stop admitting polygraphs as evidence. Whatever. That kind of reform is how the current legal system works, and I personally think that's a much better route for improvement than overhauling (or undermining, tbh) the principles of the entire justice system only to go back to some unreasoned, emotion-driven, medieval mess.



PollsDo you believe everyone deserves proper legal representation?Oct 12, 2016 at 6:49 AM