People often don't want to see defendants who they think are guilty get help, especially those who they think are absolutely "damn". To sum up, there are three main situations.
First, the defendant admitted the accusation. Does the "fact" admitted by the defendant mean the inevitable fact? Does this mean that the defendant will pay the price of his life? Not necessarily! Subjective confession is not equal to objective facts. Because these "admissions" may have major problems.
Secondly, when the defendant admits the accusation and the objective evidence shows that the facts are "true", that is, "the defendant finally admits the accusation before the ironclad evidence". Under such circumstances, can we really think that "subjective and objective facts are consistent"? However, according to the principle of criminal law, if these so-called "hard evidence" are obtained by illegal means (such as extorting confessions by torture, obtaining evidence by violence, etc.). ), they cannot be used as a basis for finalization. So it is wrong to say that such a "damn" defendant can still get away with it, and it is a neglect of the justice of the case. Then, it should be the illegal investigation organ, not the defense lawyer, that caused this mistake. Because what really gives the defendant "the right to get away with it" is the illegal behavior of the investigation organ, and the defense lawyer is only helping the parties fight for their legal rights.
Third, the defendant admitted the accusation, and the objective evidence table clearly stated this, and the evidence was legally obtained. Even so, the fact that the defendant should be punished by law does not mean that the lawyer's help is unfair. At present, the laws of all countries in the world have basically injected the humanitarian concept of criminal law. Even if we are dealing with a guilty defendant, if he or she is a minor or an old, weak, sick or disabled person, we should give these special people certain "privileges": for example, we should eliminate the adverse effects of legal punishment (such as not hearing juvenile cases in public) and reduce or even exempt their legal responsibilities (such as not applying the death penalty to minors and pregnant women, and giving lighter punishment to deaf people).
Therefore, just as doctors only support criminals' right to life, but not criminals, lawyers only support defendants to defend themselves, but not the crime itself. Allen, a professor at Harvard Law School and a famous criminal defense lawyer. Dershowitz pointed out: Our choice to defend people facing the death penalty or long-term imprisonment does not mean that we sympathize with these murderers, rapists, robbers or gang criminals ... If a murderer should be executed, he must be deprived of his life through legal and fair procedures. It is absolutely unfair and dangerous to deprive a damn murderer of his life without going through legal procedures, because it will lead to judicial abuse of power and make countless innocent defendants suffer. It is an inevitable requirement of due process to let the defendant enjoy the right of defense, but due to the lack of legal knowledge, the defendant often cannot exercise it alone, so he needs to turn to a lawyer with professional knowledge to help him exercise his due right of defense.