@@LaVaZ000 no. It literally is not. The value of the item determines the extent of the crime. That was probably a $3.50 item. That’s ridiculous… but yes, theft is never ok.
@@pulakification yea but it shouldn’t begin with 6 months in prison.. that person has a record now. They lost their job (assuming they had one and wasn’t stealing because they were starving) and now it’s gonna be nearly impossible for them to get a new job.
@@arandomyoutuber6634 you shouldnt get jail time for having weed either. illegal or no, thats no justification for the harshness of the penalty of the law
I appreciate this. I'm a correctional psychologist and I have been told a whole bunch of utterly ridiculous things by inmates that turned out to true. I've also been told lots of lies, some ridiculous and others that seemed plausible. Once you start thinking you know what you should and shouldn't believe then you are a menace to yourself and everyone around you. I have devolved into a permanent state of polite agnosticism. I neither believe nor disbelieve anything at this point. I rather envy this guy.
@@Vxjx15 I was once told a very involved story by an inmate about the absurd lengths the county jail went to to avoid taking him to a doctor to be seen for melanoma. It involved letters from his lawyer and orders from a judge and all kinds of delays. I just couldn't believe that the jail would take such risks with someone's health just to be petty, especially since they had no way to deny that they were aware of the person's diagnosis. But it was all true. I've also had guys tell me stories about turning themselves in for offenses that had not been detected that I thought were really self-serving and couldn't possibly be true that actually turned out to be totally true.
@@snowmonster42 omg this looks so interesting!! ive always loved watching series nd playing games in which prisoners talk or show their sessions w psychiatrists but i couldnt find much.. can u tell me more pls? like would it be too scary to deal w people who may have killed several people or committed worse crimes? or do they look like normal ppl nd js talk nd nothing is wierd? sorry for being so nosy lol
As a nurse, this hits home. We take care of people we think very highly of (and that society admires), and those on the other end of that spectrum. It is not our job to judge our patients or rank them in some heirarchy of value, who is more worthy or less worthy of our care. Our job is to take care of everyone... to take care of everyone the same... in the way we would want our family taken care of, the way we would want to be cared for ourselves.
I didn’t realize how badly I needed to hear the phrase “he selected a spaghetti carbonara and shoved it down his trousers” in a velvety English accent.
@@lilizi1902 What if he speaks correctly and does it not depend on the defence? You should not ask what they did wrong but how to best defend them. Its complicated and not everyone would give simple awnser and some need guiding. Just think of him as not guilty and just another man. Even how bad it is he needs a good defence and if its really that bad the defence wont help in getting him free but can reduse sentence. This is what the guy needs and thats your job whomever he might be. You could know what he did wrong but you should take every other account you can. Who he is and whats he like. Try setup a good defence even if you know its will not win it might get the sentence redused. This is the moral way. Becouse if you dont your breaching your morals by not giving him a good defence. He will get whats deserved whatever that is. If you dont want to breach your morals then just dont lie.
@@doejan8549 The premise of this video is "how do you defend someone you think is guilty". This does indeed assume someone did something. The goal of a trial is to establish what did and did not happen beyond all reasonable doubt, so assumptions do not change anything. The video only addresses why it is moral to defend someone you think is guilty
The best answer to this I’ve also heard is: “It’s not necessarily about trying to get the person off the hook when you know that they’re guilty, it’s making sure that the prosecutor has done everything necessary to prove without reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime they are being accused of. Otherwise how long is it before any of us are accused of something that we didn’t do, and since defence doesn’t matter, we’re wrongly convicted? The job isn’t about preventing people that do wrong from being punished, it’s about keeping the court rooms accountable and ensuring they provide all necessary evidence and come to the correct verdict.”
Practice in the real world. I can assure you that you'd speak St least half as well when you're appearing in court a few times a week for months to years.
Best thing i was ever told was. "If a guilty man goes free that's a failure on the prosecution. If an innocent man losses their freedom that's a failure on the defense." Edit people seem to be missing the point. In no situation should you feel responsible if you defend an guilty man and he goes free because of it. However you hold the blame if you don't properly protect an innocent man from prison or death.
@@SJ-di5zu right!?? even the moron in the video doesn't answer the question. you weren't asked whether or not you think somebody is guilty, you were asked what you do IF you think somebody is guilty -- which we all do, whether we want to or not. also, it's a bit of a cop-out to use an example of a fucking petty thief to make his argument, probably because he knows if he uses a murderer or worse as an example, he'd come off looking like the muppet he is.
Except the clients will usually be honest with their attorneys about whether they did it or not so they can plan a proper defense. A lawyer's job is to represent the client and try to get them the best possible outcome, not get to the truth. That's why you have attorney-client privilege.
@@MrMakoto2 Its not false. Clients will literally tell they did it so they lawyer can help them out of the situation. The lawyer tells them to lie sometimes so they can make a good defense.
@@MrMakoto2 Actually wait, why would the fuck would your attorney be under oath? I think that's the key part here. The witness is under oath, not your attorney so they can lie and mislead all they want.
This video is suddenly recommended to me, and it made me recall an old memory from when I was 10. As a school event, we 5-graders went to a place where kids can experience different jobs. Back then I’ve always aspired to be a lawyer, so I tried it out. They set several kids up in a small courtroom, roughly explain what we have to do and then have an adult be the judge. When they read the case, turns out I have to defend a thief that has been caught redhanded. They even provide me with the specific law section associated with this case. My impression of a lawyer just consists of “find clue” and “defend innocents” so I cannot speak anything and just stood there and let my client got the “normal” charge according to the law. After that incident I gave up on being a lawyer, because it reminds me of the powerless feeling I had while I sit at that small courtroom. I wish I could have seen this video back then.
As an Investigator, the best and hardest lesson I’ve ever learned is to treat everyone exactly the same, regardless of the allegations against them and despite their lying, aggression, verbal abuse or mental health problems. Everyone gets treated equally. Really tough when someone’s hurt another person or assassinating an innocent persons character.
I’ve treated two patients in intensive care who were involved in the same car accident. One guy was running from the cops with guns and drugs. He crashed into a mother of two and broke every limb on her body, likely putting her in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. The suspect was everything but compliant during treatment and for whatever reason, I was emphatic about doing the job that I was trained to do regardless of the situation. That’s what being a professional means. You are there to provide services even if the person receiving them does not deserve it. That’s what makes us great at what we do.
Hello! EveryoneToday, I am inviting you to come to Jesus Christ and be sure you are truly following God and doing his will by repenting and being immersed in the Baptism of life. Please come and be saved and see the truth and love of God and his mercy and kindness and for yourself. He can lead us on the path of light that leads to Heaven. I hope you will consider it. May God bless you! 🙂
@@chanceweslowski7792 thank you so much. I've always been an atheist, but when I read this comment I gave my life to Jesus and I'm going to become a preacher
The presumption of innocence and the right to defend your innocence in court with a trained lawyer is such an important thing. Without this our society would be so much more corrupt and oppressive.
Why? Everyone who have the ability to express themselves should be forbidden to have a lawyer. It would be so easy like that to see who is innocent or not. Lawyers defend the innocent but defend the guilty too. In our society we have a lot of guilty People who have money to pay for good lawyers and always stay out of trouble. That sounds pretty corrupt to me
@@lilizi1902 Some people are really good at manipulation and very charismatic. Some people are really smart and know the law inside out, others don't. Lawyers get paid to know the law and apply it to the defence of their client. I don't know what alternative system you are envisioning. Yes, corruption is bad but it always has existed and it will always exist. Saying that lawyer aren't necessary is just dumb thing to say, sorry... Rich people will always have advantages. That's not the main point.
@@lilizi1902 That is a plainly ridiculous statement, to such an extent that I can only hope that you are either very young or did not consider it much before typing it. Either way, I encourage you to read some history of the law and look at a few court cases. You should quickly discover the error in your reasoning without me spelling it out for you.
Very touching story and lesson. That's a big problem with the internet, where people aren't presented all the facts, only what they choose to look at, and then dictate whether someone is bad or not. People act so sure they know someone but they really don't. I'm often treated like a sub-human due to some twisted facts so it's pretty sad.
There are no consequences to doing it, so people online just assume things about you judging by one random thing, and genuinly think they know everything about you. It's dehumanizing really, and sad
i mean tbf there are some things that just yk you can't realllllly make up@@Kentai_Shimakaze like if you go ahead and go to your local wal-mart and just film yourself being an absolute jerk for 15 minutes all the while talking about tiktok clout and youtube subscribers, I'll say it's safe to call you a douche.
Tbh this isn’t limited to the internet. Lay men do this all the time irl. They even feel entitled to it. The only difference is that it is easier to organize mass hatred towards someone on the internet than irl
Imagine a world where lawyers just universally refused to defend someone who seemed guilty. Imagine being innocent but looking guilty and knowing you’re going to prison because nobody will bother to defend you. In this hypothetical world, we wouldn’t be sentenced based on a unanimous decision by 12 unbiased people but rather by the whim of your lawyer and whether or not they “think” you’re guilty.
@@handsomejack7901 eh, the us prison system specifically is one of the worst in the world but the actual court system itself is one of the better ones out there all things considered.
@@handsomejack7901 The fact that they don’t know you is the whole point. If it was people you knew it would be impossible to eliminate bias based on whether they “feel like you’d do it.” But if you’re being judged by strangers the only thing they have to judge you with is the evidence.
Love this. The job isn’t to have an opinion on it it’s to make sure without a shadow of a doubt that they are by trying to prove they aren’t guilty. Same for the prosecutor, it’s not if you think this person is innocent it’s to make sure there is no chance of a guilty person walking free
You're arriving at the same answer he did except you're somehow still incorrect. If you KNOW they're guilty and are representing them I think you might be Saul Goodman.
@@CerpinTxt87 Thats the bloody point: You never know. More generally (or philosophically) speaking there is not a single thing anyone knows about the world around us.
@@rangeldino2633 That (no one knows anything about the world) is not necessarily true. There are philosophical arguments against that statement (essentially you are stating the extreme anti-realist's position, realists have arguments against your views). If you want to learn about them and this debate, look it up. I am not capable of presenting good realist arguments well. I agree with you that no one can ever be 100% certain of an accused's innocence/guilt either way.
@@CerpinTxt87 even if you know they’re guilty, so what? He still has a right to defend himself, it’s up to the judge and jury to determinate guilt or not.
Who knows? Maybe they have a bias towards a particular kind of person. Perhaps they are deflecting attention from their own theft. Perhaps they're just faulty witnesses.
So something that I've always thought about criminal defense attorneys is that they aren't really defending a person but instead prosecuting the justice system. Their job is to make sure that the justice system is doing absolutely everything it's supposed to and to make sure that at no point an innocent person is prosecuted of a crime they did not commit.
Basically. They also have to make sure the punishment isn't too severe for the crime, the system often adds extra to the case because they know defense lawyers argue stuff down. It's a pretty ridiculous cycle.
Sure, but what happens in outlier cases? Where their is a boatload of circumstancial evidence and literally no one else fits the profile and the defendant keeps mocking the prosecution that they can get fucked cuz they aint gonna find anything hard on them so the defendant cant even be brought to trial. So basically the person is guilty and defense lawyer knows it too. Defendant gets to walk away even though everybody and their mother knows he was guilty. I'm assuming that IRL there are a lot of "perfect" crimes get done and all the Defense lawyer have to do is "My client says nothing and denies everything" to get that not guilty.
@@AngRyGohan lawyers don't always tell clients to dent accusations. Sometimes it's better to plead guilty. Also even with all of that stuff against one person there is still a good chance it's not your client.
Lmao yeah what country is this? Somalia? Prison for stealing food? Wtf? A fine would be harsh lmao, half a year prison is incomprehensible. that's close to 1% of your entire life
It shouldn't be possible to get 6 months for stealing a small amount of food in the first place. I don't even care what he'd done previously, he's clearly just trying to eat some food like. The system is a joke.
@@MilitantBlackGuy1 He stole from someone else. You never know if him stealing from someone else meant that they couldn't eat and they went hungry instead, because of the selfish actions of someone else. And that's why stealing and stuff like that will never be okay.
@@spy5765 i respect your position but aiding the notion that businesses are people has done so much harm legally over the decades. That business lost nothing. Their loss recouped in loss prevention insurance. That man lost 6 months of his life and much more once he was out for having a conviction. Guess he should have just starved to death.
As a lawyer from Turkey, my answer to this question is always the same: the criminal code is the promise of public order. within the code it says, "i will punish you this much if you do this". our job is to check if this promise was kept during the judgement. the guilty should be punished but only after we prove it's guilty and ony for the amount that it was promised to him.
It’s not a right, it’s not written down anywhere. The justice system is just designed in a way that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, it’s not a right.
Court appointed attorneys in the US don't really give a shit. They put the bare minimum effort into a case even if there is evidence that might prove the accused innocent.
I didn't expect to get this recommended since I never search for either law subjects or Chris-chan on YT and I just know this will keep appearing for people who've been following his case. I'm getting a video about dementia as well. This thing reads minds.
@@dankigenki Chris chan, as awful and horrible a person she is, identifies as a women so please use she/her pronouns. Even the most depraved criminals deserve having their pronouns respected. In my opinion anyway. I'm drunk as I type this so if u disagree just put it down to me feeling pretty sentimental right now n dont come for me bc I am afraid of conflict please and thanksbxxxx
@@ExperimentalKana he still needs to defend him to make sure innocents wont be convicted on shoddy standards of evidence that might be used to convict the guilty client if he was lax in tge defense. but my original point remains also. you just wanna create an imaginary scenario where defense isnt warranted for whatever reasons of your own. or maybe you watch too many movies whose purpose is to undermine the legitimacy of defense for whatever political motivations. dunno and dgaf.
@@itnaklipse1669 i dont try to make an imaginary scenario i made a joke because i found it funny if he had a client that would admit it after all that he said
Something i have realised too is that if youre defending someone who you think is guilty, 9 times out of 10, the rest of the court will also see him as guilty. If youre on a weak case that you will probably loose, then the least you can do is defend the case as well as possible in search for the truth. If your client is guilty, then it will most likely show from the case anyways
I have wondered about this for a long time, and I like to now have heard an explanation I can fully understand and accept. It seems like the professions that involve the biggest responsibilities (medicine and law anyway) also require a proper application of the philosophy that wisdom is knowing that you know hardly anything at all.
@@reneebear3641 Chris is a he. It's been confirmed that he puts the trans lady facade just so he could get a chance to sleep with lesbians. And, well, knowing Chris, it's definitely that.
No one disagrees with that. But you're still trying to convince the people who decide the outcome that a murderer or a rapist or a child molester is innocent and should face no consequences
@@shawn.spencer yeah and the prosecution will try to get an innocent man in prison as that’s what their job is. These are necessary positions, it may not work 100% of the time but two opposing forces using reason to accomplish their sole goal is the best legal system we have.
The judge in a jury trial is only there to make sure the trial is conducted properly. What do you mean “the jury shouldn’t be the jury”? They decide guilty or innocent, not the one with the gavel. It’s not a hammer.
@Lina even if you believe they are guilty. You must have faith in the legal system. If everyone guilty or innocent is prosecuted by the prosecution and defended by the defence it’s a fair system. In a fair system the jury should be able to decide if that person can be proved guilty or innocent. If you defend someone who you think is guilty and they are not convicted then the prosecution needed to do a better job, not that the defence was too strong. If the prosecution can’t prove that person guilty then one must ask why we believe they are guilty? Sometimes, the burden of proof is too high to be met with limited evidence. But that is for good reason. If it were the other way around, innocent people would be convicted because they didn’t have enough evidence to prove themselves innocent. Definitely not a perfec system. And people who are guilty sometimes get away with their crimes. But that is because the justice system is designed to protect innocent people. That means everyone gets a barrister who will defend them.
I dated a girl back in the day who was a lawyer and asked her how she can defend someone who she knows is guilty. She told me basically that you have to look at the bigger picture and that America’s justice system is built on rights to a fair trial and innocent until proven guilty. If you go against that on a larger scale (as in, everyone who is guilty isn’t given the right to a fair trial), then the system would be broken, flawed, and in fact more innocent people would be thrown into jail due to our assumptions of who is guilty or not. She said the same thing you said that it’s best to give this man his rights and to fight for his freedom because only he knows the absolute truth. Your job is to represent that.
The best I’ve heard it put is *“If you think someone is guilty, it is their right that you prove it true beyond a doubt. It’s not my job to make sure they’re moral; it’s my job to make sure the system does its part and keeps its integrity.”*
@@alexanderevans7426 Doesn’t matter. If they aren’t going to plead guilty then they will need defense. Pretty sure attorney client privilege covers whatever “knowing they are guilty” liability you think the attorney should suffer
@@alexanderevans7426 (It's a case of "knowing someone is guilty" and trying to get them off which is against the law) In the USA, a lawyer who refuses to defend a client because they know them to be guilty is themselves breaking the law and likely to be disbarred. Ex: You're defending a guy accused of murder. The prosecution has dubious evidence and there are holes in the stories of witnesses, etc. But then, the guy admits to you that he did it. You'd still have to defend him. And if you were to tell anyone of what he admitted to you, it would be an illegal breach of confidentiality and it would be inadmissible. Though if the lawyer knowingly allows false evidence/testimony, then that's illegal.
I was also told by a lawyer friend of mine that even if your defendent is absolutely, beyond a shadow a doubt guilty, he needs an advocate to make sure that the punishment fits the crime and is not overly punitive.
I always imagined it's not just about proving an innocent person is innocent. Its also about making sure prosecution can prove that guilty person is indeed guilty with evidence and without doubt.
Because it's not about proving an innocent person is innocent. That's the exact opposite of the entire ethos of the Western legal system. The burden of proof is not on the defense, it's on the prosecution.
And even if the person is actually guilty, they must have a defense no matter what. Lets say a man killed another person and that's a fact that everybody already knows in trial. His sentence length will be determined by a number of other factors that goes beyond the simple fact that he killed someone. It was an accident or not? If not, it was self defense or not? Again, if not, there was passion and/or other emotions involved or not? All this questions have answers that will determine the appropriate sentence and, for that to happen, the killer needs someone to defend him. And I can go further. Even if we knew that the guy was a cold blooded killer, he needs the RIGHT for a defense. Someone could ask "Why?". Because if he doesnt, where do we draw the line exactly? Where exactly do we say "this person cannot have a defense"? It is not possible to draw this line precise enough so that wouldn't happen misjudgments. That said, EVERYONE needs a defense, not matter what they've done. And if everyone needs a defense, there must be someone to defend even the most brutal murders out there. And this someone is only doing their job, acting in its role in the criminal process. Lawyers shouldnt be judged by that. Sorry for the broken english, not a native speaker.
@@Kimera92 Your English is fine. I always remember Star Trek TNG season 2 episode 9 - The measure of man. Riker must prosecute his freind Data on the status of being considered a person (Data is an advanced intelligent android). In the end Data thanks Riker, because Riker indirectly pushed Data to prove it to Star Fleet (the ones questioning his status as a person) in every possible way by asking hard questions. They both deep down knew he was a person, but they also knew how the Star Fleet courts work. I suggest trying to find some clips on youtube if you want or watch the episode, it's a good story.
To quote Ace Attorney: “believe in your client” Regardless of guilt or innocence, you have to defend them with as much professionalism and determination as everyone else, and sometimes more so.
Ed SMM2 and why exactly did you feel the need to write out the entire case and spoil it for people who didn’t play the games yet instead of just referencing the case number?
Everyone is memeing in the comments but this really brought peace to my heart, knowing that there are some people who will genuinely do their best to defend others in front of the law (:
I’ve always heard and agreed with the same argument: When criminals lose their rights, all it takes for the rest of us is to be labeled as criminals, then we lose our rights as well.
@@eneco3965yeah the amount of selectively enforceable laws that we're all breaking all the time is crazy. Ties into race a lot too, and just the wild amount of power we give our cops. Ugh
@M-qw9ru biological sex is much more complex than just 'male and female', its a rather facinating topic that I'd definitely suggest you look into. Though, I doubt you'll do that, as you don't care about biology or the fascinating world of genes, chromosomes and our brains, you only care to punch down on those you see as below you.
Hello! EveryoneToday, I am inviting you to come to Jesus Christ and be sure you are truly following God and doing his will by repenting and being immersed in the Baptism of life. Please come and be saved and see the truth and love of God and his mercy and kindness and for yourself. He can lead us on the path of light that leads to Heaven. I hope you will consider it. May God bless you! 🙂
The defense's attorney job is to make sure the person has a fair trial, in that the law is being upheld by all other members of the court. It is a checks and balance system. It is not just an "innocent until probent guilty" but also "punishment fits the crime", and that everyone is informed of all of their legal options and rights.
Indeed, even if they're guilty of "crime A" (I'm not very creative here), that then shouldn't be e.g. used to imply that they must have done "crime B", nor let personal opinions on someone affect how they get treated.
Not sure I understand exactly what your getting at. It seems like your suggesting that a defense attorney’s job is, in part, to make sure the punishment fits the crime. You have to assume some level of guilt if you are to determine that the punishment fits the crime. As part of the system you might hope that it all amounts to a system where the “punishment fits the crime” but that is not the directive of a defense attorney.any more than it's a jockeys job to make sure that the best horse wins the race. The jockeys job is to try and make the horse they are riding win and a defense attorney’s job is much the same except the levels of control they have over winning are much different to a jockey. In terms of not assuming your clients guilt it, I might try to stretch that jockey analogy and say that you don't always know if your horse can win or not even if the odds are against them, sometimes an outsider wins the race but if you ride it like a loser then you almost ensure that it will lose.
Unless the defendant has money in which case a lawyer will defend them regardless of how heinous the crime. Knowingly taking the side of a dangerous criminal because they are paying you to keep them out of jail is lowly and pathetic. But yeah, keep idolizing our perfect “checks and balances system”
I have no idea why this video was in my feed, even less why it appeared now, nearly 8 years after you made it, but I'm impressed by professional ethos. I'd be happily be represented by you, had I the need for a defense lawyer.
@@hollowollowyeet886 they should focus on rehabilitation. If someone’s stealing a frozen meal more often than not it’s cause they’re struggling for food. Simply placing them in a prison will leave them in the exact situation except even worse off
Exactly correct sir! It doesn't matter who someone is, what they've done, or whether they're lying to you or not. Everyone deserves their day in court if they so choose, and with that they deserve a proper defense. Imagine if a physician let you die because he thought you were a bad person. That would be wholly unacceptable. Lawyers provide an important public service.
“I’m gonna post something very slightly related to the video and just not watch it. Then I can do the same to another video and farm those sweet sweet subscribers like Justin Y!”
I've heard many discussions about it, but the way some people have put it are that your secondary goals are to ensure client is getting a fair sentence in comparison to what they did, and how the senctencing impacts the lives around them.
I've always pondered about this question, but when he puts it like that, it really switches the 1-sided thinking , to , thinking of the whole situation. It's almost like a slap in the face how something caused by your own thoughts could misguide you on something you're now biased about due to characteristics of another person; it's like watching a movie and guessing what the ending is gonna be as if you already know it, then bang, plot twist when the ending truth is revealed.
@@doejohn7548 Not quite. The more money, prestige, and PR you have plus race and gender considerations, the more likely it will be innocent until proven guilty. Poor Black/White/Hispanic males are more likely to be considered guilty until proven innocent compared to say Rich Asian/Indian/White females. And lets not forget appearance is a huge factor too, the more attractive you are, the higher chance of the public seeing you as innocent until proven guilty.
6mo in prison? For stealing a frozen meal? That's outrageous. Make him pay a fine or do service for the store, it'd cost the country a lot less and benefit the place he stole from. Maybe if he stole again then yeah, prison time, but starting off with 6mo is still insane..
Starting off with six months is insane, isn't it? Makes you wonder what's more likely; someone actually got 6 months for shoplifting or a rather huge chunk of this story got left out???
“Your honor, my client is not guilty because he said no cap”
ratio
Nah,he tweakin
Damnit
I just posted this same comment
@@Soup0066 I was about to do it too
☠☠🤣
“Your honor, if he was guilty, would he swear on his momma?”
@Shin Shaman you corny as hell
@Shin Shaman corny
@@ibflexin6413 corny
@@jwonnies Corny
@@weirdo_draws3794 corny
"Your honour stfu you werent even there"
@@GuidelinesViolaterbro wtf are you on
@@skystone15 70% of crimes
@@skystone15 12% of population
@@skystone15 70% of crimes
@@GuidelinesViolater okay youre twelve
6 months in prison for stealing some frozen spaghetti?!!?! wtf?!
Theft is theft
@@LaVaZ000 no. It literally is not. The value of the item determines the extent of the crime. That was probably a $3.50 item. That’s ridiculous… but yes, theft is never ok.
@@304Bidenit all begins with a 3 dollar item.
@@pulakification yea but it shouldn’t begin with 6 months in prison.. that person has a record now. They lost their job (assuming they had one and wasn’t stealing because they were starving) and now it’s gonna be nearly impossible for them to get a new job.
It's either an embellished story to make the point or the guy had a string of convictions and was on a suspended sentence.
This guy's good at making a point he should be a lawyer
yeah what's he doing making coffee :^)
Yeah man, he is so fit to become one.
Nice selfie as a pfp.
You’re right, he should
Here he is, wasting it by Vlogging..
6 months in jail for stealing a frozen meal. guilty or not, that is absolutely absurd.
@@jacejohnson7113 ppl are still sentenced life for an ounce or two of weed lmao the justice system has and still is wack
@@arandomyoutuber6634 you shouldnt get jail time for having weed either. illegal or no, thats no justification for the harshness of the penalty of the law
To be fair, he would just get a shorter punishment if he just says that he’s guilty rather than continue lying.
@@Chromaspell um that happens in america not the uk. the case happened in the uk
@@Chromaspell life sentences for weed??
Where do you live?
I appreciate this. I'm a correctional psychologist and I have been told a whole bunch of utterly ridiculous things by inmates that turned out to true. I've also been told lots of lies, some ridiculous and others that seemed plausible. Once you start thinking you know what you should and shouldn't believe then you are a menace to yourself and everyone around you. I have devolved into a permanent state of polite agnosticism. I neither believe nor disbelieve anything at this point. I rather envy this guy.
Well put
What’s something ridiculous you were told that turned out to be true?
@@Vxjx15 I was once told a very involved story by an inmate about the absurd lengths the county jail went to to avoid taking him to a doctor to be seen for melanoma. It involved letters from his lawyer and orders from a judge and all kinds of delays. I just couldn't believe that the jail would take such risks with someone's health just to be petty, especially since they had no way to deny that they were aware of the person's diagnosis. But it was all true. I've also had guys tell me stories about turning themselves in for offenses that had not been detected that I thought were really self-serving and couldn't possibly be true that actually turned out to be totally true.
'polite agnosticism' - I like it
@@snowmonster42
omg this looks so interesting!! ive always loved watching series nd playing games in which prisoners talk or show their sessions w psychiatrists but i couldnt find much.. can u tell me more pls? like would it be too scary to deal w people who may have killed several people or committed worse crimes? or do they look like normal ppl nd js talk nd nothing is wierd? sorry for being so nosy lol
As a nurse, this hits home. We take care of people we think very highly of (and that society admires), and those on the other end of that spectrum. It is not our job to judge our patients or rank them in some heirarchy of value, who is more worthy or less worthy of our care. Our job is to take care of everyone... to take care of everyone the same... in the way we would want our family taken care of, the way we would want to be cared for ourselves.
you should love to watch monster . It's basically about what u say
@@jeisonaguilar3530goated suggestion.
what if they ask you to step on them
If only my hospital had nurses like you
“i’m not guilty, no cap”
“your honour, as you can see he is being deadass”
@Shin Shaman and?
@@shakirathompson6333 he is a bot spamming in these comments dont worry lol
These new inner city courts be bussin, innit?
@@racsomv. That doesn’t even make any sense
@@ashley1919100 amog us
I didn’t realize how badly I needed to hear the phrase “he selected a spaghetti carbonara and shoved it down his trousers” in a velvety English accent.
🤣
6 months for that though? that was the least soothing thing ive heard in a while. Jesus. 6 months for a frozen dinner
@@ts4gv probably had priors. Doesn't make it right but I think that's the likely explanation.
"and adjusted it"
The carbonara?
I heard it as i read your comment
Perfectly put. Approach a criminal case as a skeptic to be objective as possible. Your defending your client's rights not their actions.
But when this view is meeting with the moral boundaries there is a problem
@@lilizi1902 What if he speaks correctly and does it not depend on the defence? You should not ask what they did wrong but how to best defend them. Its complicated and not everyone would give simple awnser and some need guiding. Just think of him as not guilty and just another man. Even how bad it is he needs a good defence and if its really that bad the defence wont help in getting him free but can reduse sentence. This is what the guy needs and thats your job whomever he might be. You could know what he did wrong but you should take every other account you can. Who he is and whats he like. Try setup a good defence even if you know its will not win it might get the sentence redused. This is the moral way. Becouse if you dont your breaching your morals by not giving him a good defence. He will get whats deserved whatever that is. If you dont want to breach your morals then just dont lie.
My problem is when defence lawyers make up ridiculous stories and scenarios especially in murder cases
"their actions"? you already assumed something is in fact happened with your statement.
@@doejan8549 The premise of this video is "how do you defend someone you think is guilty". This does indeed assume someone did something. The goal of a trial is to establish what did and did not happen beyond all reasonable doubt, so assumptions do not change anything. The video only addresses why it is moral to defend someone you think is guilty
Drake’s ghostwriters are watching
Wakakaka, those OVO do a watchparty on this vid man.
ON GODD
No one is suing Drake lol. If Kenny had any proof Drake would have been taken to court by now.
@@yarsaz4347you gotta be a drake fan with the way you missed the entire point of his comment lmao
The best answer to this I’ve also heard is:
“It’s not necessarily about trying to get the person off the hook when you know that they’re guilty, it’s making sure that the prosecutor has done everything necessary to prove without reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime they are being accused of.
Otherwise how long is it before any of us are accused of something that we didn’t do, and since defence doesn’t matter, we’re wrongly convicted?
The job isn’t about preventing people that do wrong from being punished, it’s about keeping the court rooms accountable and ensuring they provide all necessary evidence and come to the correct verdict.”
Damn I coulda just watched your comment instead of this schmuck
This comment needs to be pinned
Thats a better answer.
This comment is really good.
This has given me a newfound respect for lawyers, thanks!
He speaks so well. I want to be able to get my thought out as smoothly as he does
Practice in the real world. I can assure you that you'd speak St least half as well when you're appearing in court a few times a week for months to years.
Best thing i was ever told was.
"If a guilty man goes free that's a failure on the prosecution. If an innocent man losses their freedom that's a failure on the defense."
Edit people seem to be missing the point.
In no situation should you feel responsible if you defend an guilty man and he goes free because of it.
However you hold the blame if you don't properly protect an innocent man from prison or death.
I mean no shit.
@@ShortArmOfGodLol this video and all the comments are basically saying nothing tbh
@@SJ-di5zu right!?? even the moron in the video doesn't answer the question. you weren't asked whether or not you think somebody is guilty, you were asked what you do IF you think somebody is guilty -- which we all do, whether we want to or not. also, it's a bit of a cop-out to use an example of a fucking petty thief to make his argument, probably because he knows if he uses a murderer or worse as an example, he'd come off looking like the muppet he is.
Deep, let us know what else you learn by the time you’re 6
The reason why shampoo has instructions lmao
“I have no idea who is guilty or not. So, I do the same for everyone.” Straight facts.
Except the clients will usually be honest with their attorneys about whether they did it or not so they can plan a proper defense. A lawyer's job is to represent the client and try to get them the best possible outcome, not get to the truth. That's why you have attorney-client privilege.
@@MrMakoto2 Its not false. Clients will literally tell they did it so they lawyer can help them out of the situation. The lawyer tells them to lie sometimes so they can make a good defense.
@@MrMakoto2 Actually wait, why would the fuck would your attorney be under oath? I think that's the key part here. The witness is under oath, not your attorney so they can lie and mislead all they want.
That sounds like Cap
sounds about right until the evidence is unquestionable and they still try to give the person as low sentencing as possible.
“Your honor, my client is not guilty because he put it on his mama”
"He said ong"
mum's soul
“On my moma I didn’t kill him”
Understandable, have a nice day
"well why are you still here? youre free to go"
You know a nigga serious when he put it on his mama
This video is suddenly recommended to me, and it made me recall an old memory from when I was 10.
As a school event, we 5-graders went to a place where kids can experience different jobs. Back then I’ve always aspired to be a lawyer, so I tried it out. They set several kids up in a small courtroom, roughly explain what we have to do and then have an adult be the judge. When they read the case, turns out I have to defend a thief that has been caught redhanded. They even provide me with the specific law section associated with this case.
My impression of a lawyer just consists of “find clue” and “defend innocents” so I cannot speak anything and just stood there and let my client got the “normal” charge according to the law.
After that incident I gave up on being a lawyer, because it reminds me of the powerless feeling I had while I sit at that small courtroom. I wish I could have seen this video back then.
This was not the answer I was expected, nor was inclined towards, but it’s he realest and truest answer I could have gotten. Thank you.
Am I the only one perplexed that the dude got 6 months in prison for stealing a frozen TV dinner?
Yea, i feel like im missing something from his story. People dont get 6 months of jail for stealing a frozen dinner 1 time.
@@pumpkin9916 obviously they do, theft is theft. Shoplifting is up to 6 months in prison and a fine of up to 1k.
I was just questioning that too.
Maybe mr. Smith was black
@@elliothammer9485 Bruh why you gotta bring race into this
"Your honor, my client is not guilty of any accusation because he said deadass"
Lowkey bro!
@@njm5642 cringe
@@brayanisrael9175 you missed the joke but yeah go ahead
@@njm5642 whats the joke
@@Ok-wf8yd the joke is : people who say ‘’deadass’’ a lot usually say ‘’lowkey’’ and ‘’bro’’ a lot as well, here it is I spelled it out for you.
As an Investigator, the best and hardest lesson I’ve ever learned is to treat everyone exactly the same, regardless of the allegations against them and despite their lying, aggression, verbal abuse or mental health problems. Everyone gets treated equally. Really tough when someone’s hurt another person or assassinating an innocent persons character.
I dont thing 98% of police or similar does this. I hope you can spread your views
I’ve treated two patients in intensive care who were involved in the same car accident. One guy was running from the cops with guns and drugs. He crashed into a mother of two and broke every limb on her body, likely putting her in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. The suspect was everything but compliant during treatment and for whatever reason, I was emphatic about doing the job that I was trained to do regardless of the situation. That’s what being a professional means. You are there to provide services even if the person receiving them does not deserve it. That’s what makes us great at what we do.
So you have no moral boundaries?
The real question is how do you prosecute someone you know is innocent
Conviction rate percentage dictates your job. Therefore you go heavy on guilty pleas and especially hard on anyone that chooses a trial.
You typically don't. If the prosecution doesn't have enough confidence they dont take the case.
I would defend a thousand guilty criminals before I prosecuted a single innocent person
@@JOBdOut yeah, lets just ignore the actual evidence, right?
@@lp.shakur not arguing hes guilty. I'm arguing the punishment doesn't suit the crime.
Your honor, my client isn’t guilty, you should hear his villain backstory
I assure you, he's gonna have a redemption arc throughout the next months.
Hello! EveryoneToday, I am inviting you to come to Jesus Christ and be sure you are truly following God and doing his will by repenting and being immersed in the Baptism of life. Please come and be saved and see the truth and love of God and his mercy and kindness and for yourself. He can lead us on the path of light that leads to Heaven. I hope you will consider it. May God bless you! 🙂
@@chanceweslowski7792 thank you so much. I've always been an atheist, but when I read this comment I gave my life to Jesus and I'm going to become a preacher
I took my life reading that god ain't real
@@escapegoat3673 LMFAOO PLS
The presumption of innocence and the right to defend your innocence in court with a trained lawyer is such an important thing. Without this our society would be so much more corrupt and oppressive.
Why? Everyone who have the ability to express themselves should be forbidden to have a lawyer. It would be so easy like that to see who is innocent or not. Lawyers defend the innocent but defend the guilty too. In our society we have a lot of guilty People who have money to pay for good lawyers and always stay out of trouble. That sounds pretty corrupt to me
@@lilizi1902 Some people are really good at manipulation and very charismatic. Some people are really smart and know the law inside out, others don't. Lawyers get paid to know the law and apply it to the defence of their client. I don't know what alternative system you are envisioning.
Yes, corruption is bad but it always has existed and it will always exist. Saying that lawyer aren't necessary is just dumb thing to say, sorry... Rich people will always have advantages. That's not the main point.
@@lilizi1902 That is a plainly ridiculous statement, to such an extent that I can only hope that you are either very young or did not consider it much before typing it. Either way, I encourage you to read some history of the law and look at a few court cases. You should quickly discover the error in your reasoning without me spelling it out for you.
@@absoutezeo2126 tell my in a few words why this is ridiculous
I heard another lawyer say, I’m not defending them. I’m defending their rights.
Your honour, my client is not guilty! He’s simply going through his joker arc.
This is boys. Go home, this one wins
Ah yes, that is indeed boys
Very boys if you don’t mind me saying.
time for his redemption arc
@@SolarDos can confirm, this is boys
“Your honor, my client isn’t guilty, he’s just quirky”
lmao what. qwerty objects!
"He couldn't help it, he's such a Gemini! 🤪"
@@Retotion 🤪🤪😜😩
PLA
😐😐😐😐
Very touching story and lesson. That's a big problem with the internet, where people aren't presented all the facts, only what they choose to look at, and then dictate whether someone is bad or not. People act so sure they know someone but they really don't. I'm often treated like a sub-human due to some twisted facts so it's pretty sad.
There are no consequences to doing it, so people online just assume things about you judging by one random thing, and genuinly think they know everything about you. It's dehumanizing really, and sad
i mean tbf there are some things that just yk
you can't realllllly make up@@Kentai_Shimakaze
like if you go ahead and go to your local wal-mart and just film yourself being an absolute jerk for 15 minutes all the while talking about tiktok clout and youtube subscribers,
I'll say it's safe to call you a douche.
XJ9???? I'm sorry but you showed your whole ass on GD so many times that of course people found you offputting
i looked at your pfp and judged you immediately
Tbh this isn’t limited to the internet. Lay men do this all the time irl. They even feel entitled to it. The only difference is that it is easier to organize mass hatred towards someone on the internet than irl
Elite storytelling
“Your honor, my client is not guilty, he's just built different"
The comment has been out for a day and has 552 likes
Differently*
nice joke, dickhead. u come up with it by yourself? cuz this definitely isn't the hundredth time seeing it.
@@smisv maybe stop scrolling down so far then
@@graffititurtle11 it was the second comment. youtube commenters are just cognitively-stunted children incapable of being funny or original
The UA-cam algorithm has brought us all together for this story.
That joke is dead
@@Bibleguy89-uu3nr thanks for saying it
I just watched an one piece video and here am I now
UA-cam brough us here because. . . Chris-chan
I’m glad I came here
I’m a mental health therapist and I appreciate you sharing this.
i always apply this to everyday life too. this was so lovely to watch, thank you.
Imagine a world where lawyers just universally refused to defend someone who seemed guilty. Imagine being innocent but looking guilty and knowing you’re going to prison because nobody will bother to defend you. In this hypothetical world, we wouldn’t be sentenced based on a unanimous decision by 12 unbiased people but rather by the whim of your lawyer and whether or not they “think” you’re guilty.
That’s why it’s not actually like that
Welcome to ace attorney
Lol American legal system is shite
Especialy nowadays lol
@@handsomejack7901 eh, the us prison system specifically is one of the worst in the world but the actual court system itself is one of the better ones out there all things considered.
@@handsomejack7901 The fact that they don’t know you is the whole point. If it was people you knew it would be impossible to eliminate bias based on whether they “feel like you’d do it.” But if you’re being judged by strangers the only thing they have to judge you with is the evidence.
“Your honor, my client can’t possibly be guilty because he said it’s just a prank”
@@charliefifield5783 it’s not cringe it’s just a prank bro
@@yeetedbot it's a social experiment
@@mahshshsrklingfa7031 it's a study
Cringe
"Yes your honor, he even said there's a camera right over there"
"I have no idea if he is guilty or not..." - exactly! It is the judge to decide at the end - until then - nobody is guilty.
Love this. The job isn’t to have an opinion on it it’s to make sure without a shadow of a doubt that they are by trying to prove they aren’t guilty. Same for the prosecutor, it’s not if you think this person is innocent it’s to make sure there is no chance of a guilty person walking free
There’s only one proper answer:
Q. How do you defend someone that you think is guilty?
A. To the best of your ability.
You're arriving at the same answer he did except you're somehow still incorrect. If you KNOW they're guilty and are representing them I think you might be Saul Goodman.
@@CerpinTxt87
Nobody said ‘know’.
@@CerpinTxt87 Thats the bloody point: You never know. More generally (or philosophically) speaking there is not a single thing anyone knows about the world around us.
@@rangeldino2633 That (no one knows anything about the world) is not necessarily true. There are philosophical arguments against that statement (essentially you are stating the extreme anti-realist's position, realists have arguments against your views). If you want to learn about them and this debate, look it up. I am not capable of presenting good realist arguments well.
I agree with you that no one can ever be 100% certain of an accused's innocence/guilt either way.
@@CerpinTxt87 even if you know they’re guilty, so what? He still has a right to defend himself, it’s up to the judge and jury to determinate guilt or not.
He speaks so well.......i love it ❤
I thought this was 10 minutes, but I didn't realize it was 3 minutes. Well said
“Your honor, my client is not guilty because he put it on god”
LMFAOO
😂
Deadass?
@@coalkingryan881 deadass.
But your client is atheist
I'm more interested in this very weird conspiracy that the guards were involved in!
Lol
I'm more interested in how someone got 6 months for stealing a frozen pizza. That seems like a lot.
Edit: you people are way too literal.
@@dylancrouch273
Im surprised they didnt bring back hanging for this horrendous crime
@@dylancrouch273 they probably said it was the last one, nothing beneath murder for that
Who knows? Maybe they have a bias towards a particular kind of person. Perhaps they are deflecting attention from their own theft. Perhaps they're just faulty witnesses.
Exactly. Well said.
I'd rather 1 guilty man go free than 1 innocent man get locked up.
So it has to be *proven.*
Drake's Ghostwriters taking notes
So something that I've always thought about criminal defense attorneys is that they aren't really defending a person but instead prosecuting the justice system. Their job is to make sure that the justice system is doing absolutely everything it's supposed to and to make sure that at no point an innocent person is prosecuted of a crime they did not commit.
Basically. They also have to make sure the punishment isn't too severe for the crime, the system often adds extra to the case because they know defense lawyers argue stuff down. It's a pretty ridiculous cycle.
@@leepeffers9331 good point!
Yes agreed
Sure, but what happens in outlier cases? Where their is a boatload of circumstancial evidence and literally no one else fits the profile and the defendant keeps mocking the prosecution that they can get fucked cuz they aint gonna find anything hard on them so the defendant cant even be brought to trial. So basically the person is guilty and defense lawyer knows it too. Defendant gets to walk away even though everybody and their mother knows he was guilty. I'm assuming that IRL there are a lot of "perfect" crimes get done and all the Defense lawyer have to do is "My client says nothing and denies everything" to get that not guilty.
@@AngRyGohan lawyers don't always tell clients to dent accusations. Sometimes it's better to plead guilty. Also even with all of that stuff against one person there is still a good chance it's not your client.
UA-cam: This guy literally has no preference, lets just recommend him anything.
lmao same, i think this is being sent to anyone
Yeah
honestly though lmao
Yup just popped on my feed today out of nowhere
but it’s good… so
This is such a great argument that I never really thinked about
Aye, another Dominic answering a question I've had for years. Thanks! I hope you have a wonderful day sir.
Can we talk about how it's pretty damn sad poor Mr Smith got 6 months for stealing a fucking microwave meal? That blows my mind.
His dumbass should have taken the plea deal rather than saying that it was a set up against him.
Ye but it was from M&S so probably cost about 200 quid
Lmao yeah what country is this? Somalia? Prison for stealing food? Wtf? A fine would be harsh lmao, half a year prison is incomprehensible. that's close to 1% of your entire life
If it was in America he's probably would've been shot
@@a_peridox what are you talking about?
6 months in PRISON for a spaghetti? I’d be pissed at my lawyer
It shouldn't be possible to get 6 months for stealing a small amount of food in the first place. I don't even care what he'd done previously, he's clearly just trying to eat some food like. The system is a joke.
@@MilitantBlackGuy1 He stole from someone else. You never know if him stealing from someone else meant that they couldn't eat and they went hungry instead, because of the selfish actions of someone else. And that's why stealing and stuff like that will never be okay.
@@spy5765 He stole from a huge supermarket actually, it's detailed specifically in the video.
@@spy5765 get off UA-cam fr
@@spy5765 i respect your position but aiding the notion that businesses are people has done so much harm legally over the decades. That business lost nothing. Their loss recouped in loss prevention insurance. That man lost 6 months of his life and much more once he was out for having a conviction. Guess he should have just starved to death.
As a lawyer from Turkey, my answer to this question is always the same: the criminal code is the promise of public order. within the code it says, "i will punish you this much if you do this". our job is to check if this promise was kept during the judgement. the guilty should be punished but only after we prove it's guilty and ony for the amount that it was promised to him.
It’s funny that this comes up in my algorithm with the whole Drake vs Kendrick beef
This is why the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is such an important human right.
Sadly in some countries like Japan you are guilty till proven innocent
It’s not a right, it’s not written down anywhere. The justice system is just designed in a way that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, it’s not a right.
@@tex-mex4082Actually it is written down, article 11 section 1 of the UN universal declaration of human rights.
The next human rights should be food, water, shelter, healthcare, and education.
@@tex-mex4082it's written down like the comment said below
This thing must be getting algorithmically boosted by Chris Chan's lawyer frantically rewatching it over and over
Court appointed attorneys in the US don't really give a shit. They put the bare minimum effort into a case even if there is evidence that might prove the accused innocent.
Nice Esix pfp
@@rashira9610
So many cases, you are lucky if they read through your first name.
I didn't expect to get this recommended since I never search for either law subjects or Chris-chan on YT and I just know this will keep appearing for people who've been following his case. I'm getting a video about dementia as well.
This thing reads minds.
@@dankigenki Chris chan, as awful and horrible a person she is, identifies as a women so please use she/her pronouns. Even the most depraved criminals deserve having their pronouns respected. In my opinion anyway. I'm drunk as I type this so if u disagree just put it down to me feeling pretty sentimental right now n dont come for me bc I am afraid of conflict please and thanksbxxxx
bro when his defendant admits to first degree murder 💀
except false confessions exist.
@@itnaklipse1669 what if he tells him that he did it
@@ExperimentalKana he still needs to defend him to make sure innocents wont be convicted on shoddy standards of evidence that might be used to convict the guilty client if he was lax in tge defense.
but my original point remains also.
you just wanna create an imaginary scenario where defense isnt warranted for whatever reasons of your own. or maybe you watch too many movies whose purpose is to undermine the legitimacy of defense for whatever political motivations. dunno and dgaf.
@@itnaklipse1669 i dont try to make an imaginary scenario i made a joke because i found it funny if he had a client that would admit it after all that he said
Something i have realised too is that if youre defending someone who you think is guilty, 9 times out of 10, the rest of the court will also see him as guilty. If youre on a weak case that you will probably loose, then the least you can do is defend the case as well as possible in search for the truth. If your client is guilty, then it will most likely show from the case anyways
“Your honour, my client is not guilty, he was just in a silly goofy mood”
XDDD
He was just feeling quirky
This reminds me of Goofy's Trial by Filthy Frank
He's just a bit quirky
@@souppastes5519 they do get a bit quirky at night
The real question to me is how do you get 6 months in prison for taking a frozen spaghetti
It's called a criminal past. Pretty obvious. The more dumb and evil shit you do the more time you get.
@@INDRIDCOLD83 Stealing spaghetti doesn’t quite fill in with evil , but I get what you mean
@@thatguy5779 Wdym we have murderers, rapists and then a close third is stealing food bro XD
I smell bulls#1t...don't you?
By not pleading guilty like he suggested lol
Random recommendation and I'm glad I got the answer to one of the many questions I've had since high school.
I have wondered about this for a long time, and I like to now have heard an explanation I can fully understand and accept. It seems like the professions that involve the biggest responsibilities (medicine and law anyway) also require a proper application of the philosophy that wisdom is knowing that you know hardly anything at all.
The lawyer defending Christian Weston Chandler is going to need this video
I'm laughing to hide the fucking pain.
What did he do
@@user-wt8im2ro1p
She’s a trans woman that did *things* with her mother that has dimensia, obviously meaning she can’t consent.
@@user-wt8im2ro1p
Also UA-cam didn’t like me answering that lol
@@reneebear3641 Chris is a he. It's been confirmed that he puts the trans lady facade just so he could get a chance to sleep with lesbians. And, well, knowing Chris, it's definitely that.
"Our job as defense advocates is not to be the jury" I agree completely
No one disagrees with that. But you're still trying to convince the people who decide the outcome that a murderer or a rapist or a child molester is innocent and should face no consequences
@@shawn.spencer yeah and the prosecution will try to get an innocent man in prison as that’s what their job is.
These are necessary positions, it may not work 100% of the time but two opposing forces using reason to accomplish their sole goal is the best legal system we have.
The jurys job shouldnt even be being the jury man why tf do yall even have the guy with the hammer
The judge in a jury trial is only there to make sure the trial is conducted properly. What do you mean “the jury shouldn’t be the jury”? They decide guilty or innocent, not the one with the gavel. It’s not a hammer.
@Lina even if you believe they are guilty. You must have faith in the legal system. If everyone guilty or innocent is prosecuted by the prosecution and defended by the defence it’s a fair system. In a fair system the jury should be able to decide if that person can be proved guilty or innocent.
If you defend someone who you think is guilty and they are not convicted then the prosecution needed to do a better job, not that the defence was too strong.
If the prosecution can’t prove that person guilty then one must ask why we believe they are guilty?
Sometimes, the burden of proof is too high to be met with limited evidence. But that is for good reason. If it were the other way around, innocent people would be convicted because they didn’t have enough evidence to prove themselves innocent.
Definitely not a perfec system. And people who are guilty sometimes get away with their crimes. But that is because the justice system is designed to protect innocent people. That means everyone gets a barrister who will defend them.
can we just appreciate him for sharing this on UA-cam for everyone?
I dated a girl back in the day who was a lawyer and asked her how she can defend someone who she knows is guilty. She told me basically that you have to look at the bigger picture and that America’s justice system is built on rights to a fair trial and innocent until proven guilty. If you go against that on a larger scale (as in, everyone who is guilty isn’t given the right to a fair trial), then the system would be broken, flawed, and in fact more innocent people would be thrown into jail due to our assumptions of who is guilty or not. She said the same thing you said that it’s best to give this man his rights and to fight for his freedom because only he knows the absolute truth. Your job is to represent that.
what if your client tells you they committed the crime?
edit: okay guys I get it now you can stop replying
Our justice system in the UK isn’t the same as the justice system in the US.
@@Ok-kx2te That client wouldn't have to hire a lawyer in the first place if its just going to confess.
@@Daftfuhrer they're talking about if the client tells they lawyer the truth. That's why they are a CLIENT.
@@Orapac-ln5jd Fair enough.
The best I’ve heard it put is *“If you think someone is guilty, it is their right that you prove it true beyond a doubt. It’s not my job to make sure they’re moral; it’s my job to make sure the system does its part and keeps its integrity.”*
Agreed
It's not a case of "if you think someone is guilty". It's a case of "knowing someone is guilty" and trying to get him off which is against the law.
@@alexanderevans7426 Doesn’t matter. If they aren’t going to plead guilty then they will need defense. Pretty sure attorney client privilege covers whatever “knowing they are guilty” liability you think the attorney should suffer
That’s a good answer. Much better than the one in the video that missed the point slightly.
@@alexanderevans7426 (It's a case of "knowing someone is guilty" and trying to get them off which is against the law)
In the USA, a lawyer who refuses to defend a client because they know them to be guilty is themselves breaking the law and likely to be disbarred.
Ex:
You're defending a guy accused of murder. The prosecution has dubious evidence and there are holes in the stories of witnesses, etc. But then, the guy admits to you that he did it.
You'd still have to defend him. And if you were to tell anyone of what he admitted to you, it would be an illegal breach of confidentiality and it would be inadmissible.
Though if the lawyer knowingly allows false evidence/testimony, then that's illegal.
This was very insightful, thank you for sharing Dominic!
I love this video, thank you for this perspective!
“Your honor, I’m just ballin”
ua-cam.com/video/uBB2VLXetOE/v-deo.html 4
Crazy DIAMONDO
@@jkbruhbruh6358 the jojo fans are everywhere
@@jkbruhbruh6358 🗿
But at what cost?
I was also told by a lawyer friend of mine that even if your defendent is absolutely, beyond a shadow a doubt guilty, he needs an advocate to make sure that the punishment fits the crime and is not overly punitive.
like 6 months in prison for a TV dinner?
@@Slayer_of_Demons Listen buddy, we let one TV dinner go next thing you know they’re coming after our movie dinners.
Except it is rarely just .
@@Vietmac1993 He was innocent though. He told the truth and had nothing to come clean about.
@@Vietmac1993 Did you watch the video? He was innocent
this is a great monologue. get this guy on a tv show about lawyers
Prison? For stealing a ready meal?
I think it should be straight to the death penalty
@@goosegame3857 Chinese water torture.
A succulent ready meal?!?
ikr. could be repeated offense... iguess
@@REDACTED_7 maybe he assaulted a guard while escaping or something
bro gotta defend drake
Beautifully put.
I always imagined it's not just about proving an innocent person is innocent. Its also about making sure prosecution can prove that guilty person is indeed guilty with evidence and without doubt.
Because it's not about proving an innocent person is innocent. That's the exact opposite of the entire ethos of the Western legal system. The burden of proof is not on the defense, it's on the prosecution.
@@Lucas-sk5iy Yes, that is essentially what I said...
And even if the person is actually guilty, they must have a defense no matter what.
Lets say a man killed another person and that's a fact that everybody already knows in trial. His sentence length will be determined by a number of other factors that goes beyond the simple fact that he killed someone.
It was an accident or not? If not, it was self defense or not? Again, if not, there was passion and/or other emotions involved or not? All this questions have answers that will determine the appropriate sentence and, for that to happen, the killer needs someone to defend him.
And I can go further.
Even if we knew that the guy was a cold blooded killer, he needs the RIGHT for a defense.
Someone could ask "Why?".
Because if he doesnt, where do we draw the line exactly? Where exactly do we say "this person cannot have a defense"? It is not possible to draw this line precise enough so that wouldn't happen misjudgments.
That said, EVERYONE needs a defense, not matter what they've done. And if everyone needs a defense, there must be someone to defend even the most brutal murders out there. And this someone is only doing their job, acting in its role in the criminal process. Lawyers shouldnt be judged by that.
Sorry for the broken english, not a native speaker.
@@Kimera92 Your English is fine. I always remember Star Trek TNG season 2 episode 9 - The measure of man.
Riker must prosecute his freind Data on the status of being considered a person (Data is an advanced intelligent android). In the end Data thanks Riker, because Riker indirectly pushed Data to prove it to Star Fleet (the ones questioning his status as a person) in every possible way by asking hard questions. They both deep down knew he was a person, but they also knew how the Star Fleet courts work.
I suggest trying to find some clips on youtube if you want or watch the episode, it's a good story.
lol wut?
Man, that was well delivered. It's like watching a monologue from a movie.
Was really inspirational for a person like myself who one day wants to become a Human Rights Lawyer
@@TagoMago2010 Definitely! Good luck on your law journey!
@@kingbernard_30 thanks man 🤝
"They may take our lives, but they may never take... OUR FREEDOM!"
He's a lawyer, these guys are the cream of the crop when it comes to speaking
That was an amazing story, I did not expect that flip. That's how you know this guy is a barrister!
Translation: ignore your gut feelings and logic, and do your job. Not something I agree with, but to each their own.
To quote Ace Attorney: “believe in your client”
Regardless of guilt or innocence, you have to defend them with as much professionalism and determination as everyone else, and sometimes more so.
Allow me to present exhibit A against this: Chris Chan
@@NiceColorss I don’t know who that is…
I love Ace Attorney
Ed SMM2 and why exactly did you feel the need to write out the entire case and spoil it for people who didn’t play the games yet instead of just referencing the case number?
Until the prosecutor updated the autopsy report
He should read an audio book his voice is so engaging and calming, not to mention he did that impression very well!
But record it a reasonable level so we can actually HEAR it. ☹
Yeah he should be a lawyer..
plus 1
sounds like john bercow a little
Yeah with decent recording equipment
Everyone is memeing in the comments but this really brought peace to my heart, knowing that there are some people who will genuinely do their best to defend others in front of the law (:
The short answer is : Money
I’ve always heard and agreed with the same argument: When criminals lose their rights, all it takes for the rest of us is to be labeled as criminals, then we lose our rights as well.
People forget that anything can be a crime
@@eneco3965yeah the amount of selectively enforceable laws that we're all breaking all the time is crazy. Ties into race a lot too, and just the wild amount of power we give our cops. Ugh
@@M-qw9ru How’s that related?
Its not. Its just something that constantly haunts his thoughts. Lol
@M-qw9ru biological sex is much more complex than just 'male and female', its a rather facinating topic that I'd definitely suggest you look into. Though, I doubt you'll do that, as you don't care about biology or the fascinating world of genes, chromosomes and our brains, you only care to punch down on those you see as below you.
This guy has the most charismatic and soothing voice ever
no wonder he's a lawyer
huh
He practice it, part of the career
He sounds like some guy in a movie
The smoking probably played a role
This UA-cam suggestion was actually a random one but a good one
Harry’s super cool. Livvy Roddy is me bird:)
“Your honor my client is not guilty because he said on my momma”
@@photns 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Hello! EveryoneToday, I am inviting you to come to Jesus Christ and be sure you are truly following God and doing his will by repenting and being immersed in the Baptism of life. Please come and be saved and see the truth and love of God and his mercy and kindness and for yourself. He can lead us on the path of light that leads to Heaven. I hope you will consider it. May God bless you! 🙂
@Mo No who?
@@chanceweslowski7792 ua-cam.com/video/abLKoHDqIFQ/v-deo.html
The defense's attorney job is to make sure the person has a fair trial, in that the law is being upheld by all other members of the court. It is a checks and balance system. It is not just an "innocent until probent guilty" but also "punishment fits the crime", and that everyone is informed of all of their legal options and rights.
In an ideal world sure…but the disgusting crooks who keep crime boss’, political scumbag and more out of prison deserve a special place in hell
Indeed, even if they're guilty of "crime A" (I'm not very creative here), that then shouldn't be e.g. used to imply that they must have done "crime B", nor let personal opinions on someone affect how they get treated.
This has got to be the most delusional comment on youtube
Not sure I understand exactly what your getting at. It seems like your suggesting that a defense attorney’s job is, in part, to make sure the punishment fits the crime. You have to assume some level of guilt if you are to determine that the punishment fits the crime. As part of the system you might hope that it all amounts to a system where the “punishment fits the crime” but that is not the directive of a defense attorney.any more than it's a jockeys job to make sure that the best horse wins the race. The jockeys job is to try and make the horse they are riding win and a defense attorney’s job is much the same except the levels of control they have over winning are much different to a jockey.
In terms of not assuming your clients guilt it, I might try to stretch that jockey analogy and say that you don't always know if your horse can win or not even if the odds are against them, sometimes an outsider wins the race but if you ride it like a loser then you almost ensure that it will lose.
Unless the defendant has money in which case a lawyer will defend them regardless of how heinous the crime. Knowingly taking the side of a dangerous criminal because they are paying you to keep them out of jail is lowly and pathetic. But yeah, keep idolizing our perfect “checks and balances system”
I have no idea why this video was in my feed, even less why it appeared now, nearly 8 years after you made it, but I'm impressed by professional ethos. I'd be happily be represented by you, had I the need for a defense lawyer.
What a beautiful answer from a beautiful soul. God bless you, Dominic.
Gosh! What a lovely message. Thank you so much as I am profoundly touched. Sending best wishes, Dominic
@@Bewellbeone You're welcome. And thank you too.
The real lesson here is that you can get 6 months for stealing a frozen meal
Imagine stealing a 4 dollar meal to get free health care, shelter, food and work for 6 months
They really need to work on their punishments
@@hollowollowyeet886 they should focus on rehabilitation. If someone’s stealing a frozen meal more often than not it’s cause they’re struggling for food. Simply placing them in a prison will leave them in the exact situation except even worse off
That’s still a thing even today. The highest class misdemeanor for shoplifting is up to 2 years.
150 euro fine in the Netherlands for doing this
Was that really just 3 minutes? That felt like a 20 minute lesson
honestly
In the best way though
In the best way. Probably because he’s actually saying something and not just talking
Not sure that's a compliment
Damn Yoshi mains
Exactly correct sir! It doesn't matter who someone is, what they've done, or whether they're lying to you or not. Everyone deserves their day in court if they so choose, and with that they deserve a proper defense. Imagine if a physician let you die because he thought you were a bad person. That would be wholly unacceptable. Lawyers provide an important public service.
This is a really good guide for ace attorney, also useful for lawyers
I wouldn't have thought of a better way to end his monologue. Eloquently spoken.
Why r u here
Everywhere I go, I see your face
dude ive seen u somewhere
“I’m gonna post something very slightly related to the video and just not watch it. Then I can do the same to another video and farm those sweet sweet subscribers like Justin Y!”
couldnt agree more
Borat: “I am guilty”
6 months later...
“Naaahht”
Ok that's a worthy joke
Fuck yeah it is
@@a-10warthog78 soiled it.
@@a-10warthog78 You just shat all over this man's joke with your attempt at comedy, I went from laughing to mildly agitated.
@@mrgainz7252 what did he say, I can't see his comment
I've heard many discussions about it, but the way some people have put it are that your secondary goals are to ensure client is getting a fair sentence in comparison to what they did, and how the senctencing impacts the lives around them.
I've always pondered about this question, but when he puts it like that, it really switches the 1-sided thinking , to , thinking of the whole situation.
It's almost like a slap in the face how something caused by your own thoughts could misguide you on something you're now biased about due to characteristics of another person; it's like watching a movie and guessing what the ending is gonna be as if you already know it, then bang, plot twist when the ending truth is revealed.
As it should be, we forget that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, this should apply to everyone no matter the case
In the times we living in is guilty until proven innocent sadly
@@doejohn7548 Not quite. The more money, prestige, and PR you have plus race and gender considerations, the more likely it will be innocent until proven guilty. Poor Black/White/Hispanic males are more likely to be considered guilty until proven innocent compared to say Rich Asian/Indian/White females. And lets not forget appearance is a huge factor too, the more attractive you are, the higher chance of the public seeing you as innocent until proven guilty.
@@authenticinari-fox8164 makes sense im Hispanic so I get the race proportion of it as well as with the wealthy people too 💯
Men are guilty until proven otherwise vic versa for women
@@noexceptions8438 aww boohoo poor oppressed male
6mo in prison? For stealing a frozen meal? That's outrageous. Make him pay a fine or do service for the store, it'd cost the country a lot less and benefit the place he stole from. Maybe if he stole again then yeah, prison time, but starting off with 6mo is still insane..
Starting off with six months is insane, isn't it?
Makes you wonder what's more likely; someone actually got 6 months for shoplifting or a rather huge chunk of this story got left out???
this song title is perfect to explain why ua-cam.com/video/VYOjWnS4cMY/v-deo.html
What's more insane is the person who serves 6 months for something so small, and they go out and do it again, and again, and again.
@@MaticJ29 "This is America" explains a story about a UK man in a UK court.
Ok.
Yeah, it’s a lie. No one gets 6 months for that.