Can a bishop as a lawyer represent a sexual harassment offender?

[bcoyer]

My question is: Can a LDS Bishop, whom is a lawyer, represent a multiple time sexual harassment offender? I guess it may be just for the money.

[Mahone]

Why not? Strictly speaking, the courts are there to determine guilt, and if so, level of guilt and therefore sentence. Not everyone that goes into the dock is guilty, and not everyone that is guilty shares the same level of guilt. Defense attorneys are there to try help the client prove either innocence or try and prove that they deserve a lesser sentence for whatever reason - there is nothing immoral about what they do in general, they are a vital part of the criminal justice system.

[mnn727]

Why not? Everyone deserves representation and a fair trial.

It doesn't necessarily mean the lawer is trying to get his client off. Lawyers can also see that justice is done (ie that the punishment fits the crime, that they are convicted only of the crimes they actually committed)

[bcoyer]

I guess I was wrong in assuming guilt from the prior 2 convictions/settlements. It is possible the third time he is innocent, but come on.

Mohone: Level of Guilt? I don't understand that point of view. There is no grey area. Either you did it or you didn't. There is no, "He did it, but it really wasnt that bad".

Im just thinking this LDS bishop's main source of income is this repeat offender with a lot of money and it's just not right for him to try and continue to bail him out of trouble. If I am wrong, than I apologize.

[Mahone]

I guess I was wrong in assuming guilt from the prior 2 convictions/settlements. It is possible the third time he is innocent, but come on.

I've learnt over time that making assumptions doesn't get us anywhere.

Mohone: Level of Guilt? I don't understand that point of view. There is no grey area. Either you did it or you didn't. There is no, "He did it, but it really wasnt that bad".

What if someone was mentally ill, and did not understand fully what they were doing? That's just one of the many, many grey areas you just denied existed. I'm no legal expert, but I do know that these are taken into consideration during a trial.

[Guest DeborahC]

Personally, I wouldn't do it.

But then, personally, I wouldn't do much of what our laws allow attorneys and courts to do.

If he's a public defender, he may not have a choice? I'm not sure...

[bcoyer]

Mahone:

You are correct if it was a case of a few missing chromosomes. But in this instance, it is not the case. Anyone that would commit a sexual harassment crime could be considered "mentally ill".

Deborah: He is not a public defender.

[Mahone]

Mahone:

You are correct if it was a case of a few missing chromosomes. But in this instance, it is not the case.

Unfortunately, unless you are the judge, that is not for you to personally decide. Mental illness very often cannot be seen with the naked eye, or noticed even when spending a long time with a person. There could be thousands of reasons why this person did what they did - sometimes only an expert would be able to tell, and even then, when it comes to mental illness, you can never know for sure. Thankfully, I'd hope that no-one in a court room is quite as quick to make assumptions.

[bcoyer]

Unfortunately, unless you are the judge, that is not for you to personally decide. Mental illness very often cannot be seen with the naked eye, or noticed even when spending a long time with a person. There could be thousands of reasons why this person did what they did - sometimes only an expert would be able to tell, and even then, when it comes to mental illness, you can never know for sure. Thankfully, I'd hope that no-one in a court room is quite as quick to make assumptions.

what about this then, the defendant clearly stated "It's the cost of doing business". Meaning he knew it was wrong, he did it anyway because he has the millions to get him out of it.

[NeuroTypical]

bcoyer, our legal system is founded on the principle that even the scumbags get competent legal counsel. Do you disagree with this foundational principle? If not, then what's your gripe here?

I would much rather have a moral bishop represent a sex offender, than a schyster lawyer who would try all sorts of dirty tricks.

Wouldn't you?

[Mahone]

what about this then, the defendant clearly stated "It's the cost of doing business". Meaning he knew it was wrong, he did it anyway because he has the millions to get him out of it.

Look, I am not the judge either. I am not here to decide whether this person is guilty or not guilty. I am merely pointing out the flaws in your argument. The brain is more complex than either you or I understand - and the brain also controls what a person says and what a person does. This is why I'd leave those kind of decisions to the psychiatrists, who understand far more than I do, and the courtroom, and not assume guilt. There is a reason why defense attorneys exist, and this is it.

Assumptions are incredibly dangerous is a courtroom.

[Guest DeborahC]

I don't agree that anyone that would commit a sexual harassment crime could be considered mentally ill.

It depends on the seriousness of the sexual harassment in my opinion.

What was considered sexual harassment was once just laughed off.

If the guy is an old man, it could just be what he felt to be acceptable behavior, like calling his secretary "sweetheart" or telling her she looked nice today. I've seen people accuse others of sexual harassment for something that simple.

On the other hand, if he's a total lecher, grabbing or touching, he needs jail to wise him up.

And if he's mentally ill, he should be in a facility where he can not hurt himself or others.

Unfortunately, they've turned the mentally ill out into the streets in Portland, Oregon. They sleep under bridges, have no place to bathe, use the toilet, or eat, and are often victims of crimes.

It's a disgrace when we sweep other human beings under the rug and pretend they do not exist because we'd rather spend our money on flashy toys and huge ugly houses.

In some states, you can get arrested for spanking your own child! The laws are crazy. What ever happened to personal responsibility? In my day, if a boss grabbed me for the third time, my husband, father, or brother would knock his block off and solve the problem. Today, that's called "unnecessary violence."

Go figure.

[skippy740]

A bishop, like any member of the church, can do any profession they choose as long as its legal, moral & ethical. (Lawyer? Yep, they do exist too!)

The only time when being a bishop can hinder their being a lawyer, is when a member of the congregation has confessed to a crime to the bishop. The bishop, now the lawyer, cannot represent and defend this man in court. It becomes a conflict of interest.

[Just_A_Guy]

Im just thinking this LDS bishop's main source of income is this repeat offender with a lot of money and it's just not right for him to try and continue to bail him out of trouble. If I am wrong, than I apologize.

Is not Jesus' main source of "income", the eternal servitude and praise of those for whom He pleads before the Father?

Let us all pray that He doesn't decide to quit bailing all of us repeat offenders out of trouble.

[Wingnut]

OP, it sounds like you already have your mind made up. What are you asking us for?

[Dravin]

OP, it sounds like you already have your mind made up. What are you asking us for?

I suspect he wants us to validate him/his position.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Dravin

[dahlia]

I am a lapsed lawyer. Everyone is entitled to the representation of counsel. Can counsel choose his/her clients? In many cases, yes. If a public defender, obviously no. When I practiced, I did civil work, but occasionally someone would ask me to represent them on a DUI. Not happening. Nor would I represent a child abuser.

Sexual harassment is a tricky thing. There are people who live to make accusations and see court cases as a pay day. There are people with thin skin who feel 'harassed' by every off color joke or reference to their gender. I'd have to know what the other charges were, why the client was found guilty, but I could see myself representing such a client.

And while this may rub people the wrong way - while the office of the bishop is a serious one, so is being a lawyer and helping people maintain or regain their rights. Short of a child abuse case, if I were a bishop, the lawyer thing would have to come first. Perhaps someone who handles criminal cases should think twice before agreeing to be called as bishop. I think the possibility of it looking incongruous with our beliefs is quite real and should be considered, but I'm not going to make a blanket statement about who a lawyer should and should not represent.

[apexviper13]

Yep. The Constitution gives every citizen a right to a fair trial. We, as members of the church, are taught to keep the laws of the land.

[Backroads]

I see nothing wrong with it. It's either allow people lawyers or return to mob hangings.

[Dravin]

Short of a child abuse case, if I were a bishop, the lawyer thing would have to come first.

The conflict I can see between being a Bishop and being a lawyer is if your client was also a member in your ward, then you've have the conflict of trying to talk him into accepting responsibility and confessing his crimes and pleading his lack of guilt in court. Presuming of course said client had confessed to you in one of your capacities.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Dravin

[pam]

My dad's best friend (before my dad passed away) is a Federal Judge in Utah.

Years ago this judge was a Bishop and also a defense attorney in the Navy...he told us stories of how difficult it was at times to be a Bishop and also be assigned to defend military personnel who he knew without a doubt were guilty. But that was his job and he had to do the best job he could do.

FWIW, he didn't get paid any differently for winning or losing a case while in the Navy.

[Just_A_Guy]

FWIW, the Utah bar forbids attorneys from taking contingency fees on criminal defense cases.

[pam]

FWIW, the Utah bar forbids attorneys from taking contingency fees on criminal defense cases.

I wonder why that is so. I guess I can kind of see it but would seem rather foolish for an attorney to take on the defense of someone where there is a high risk they would lose.

Yet I know many attorneys take on cases of wrongful death etc..based on the contingency issue. Which I do realize is not a criminal defense case...in case you were thinking I didn't know the difference. :)

[Just_A_Guy]

Yeah; Utah bars contingency fees for criminal and divorce cases. Otherwise, they're fair game.

I suspect that, where criminal cases are concerned, some of the issues behind the ban are 1) Wanting to make sure that the guilty, as well as the innocent-but-wrongfully-accused, have access to counsel; and 2) Reducing defense counsel's incentive to gum up the system by making a fight out of something that should really end with a plea bargain.

[pam]

I think I could also see that if defense for criminal cases could be based on contingency fees, how much more the victim could be made out to be the criminal instead. Whether the defendent was guilty of not. There are a lot of cases that are already played dirty in this respect..but think of how much more that would be if a defense attorney got paid based on whether he wins.

Reducing defense counsel's incentive to gum up the system by making a fight out of something that should really end with a plea bargain.

I can see that as well. Makes sense.