Listening to these defenders of the damned and it is not hard to see why the public generally has a disconnect with them: they come to the point that they not only defend the rights of the accused but begin to identify with them and excuse/apology for the crime. And when they manage to get one of these thugs off it is a good bet they have just sentenced some unsuspecting law abiding citizen to be the next victim.

It is one thing to defend the innocent but it is another to try and get the guilty off and thwart justice and keep the streets unsafe for us all.

Sent by George from Oregon | 2:25 PM ET | 06-20-2007

at the age of 19 i found myself in the orange county jail at santa ana facing a posession of cocaine charge. i was no stranger to the criminal court system, having done a few months of time in washington state. i was pretty shocked though when my public "defender" came in and met me in the courtroom at my arraignment and told me to plead guilty or go to a california prison for 5 to 10 years. i was scared so i listened. what a huge mistake!! thank you mr. pretender. here's a joke common amongst criminals, what do nuns and public defenders have in common? neither one will get you off.

Sent by adrianna | 2:38 PM ET | 06-20-2007

overworked? underpaid? The san diego public defenders are making well over $100,000 a year within 3 years of starting-and their work load? Go to one of their lunches-they eat, go to their kids plays, play racquetball, have work done on the car, and any of a million other things "regular people" would love to do all on the taxpayers dollar.

Sent by Chuck Lange | 2:42 PM ET | 06-20-2007

why are public defenders so "bad" and yet the high priced paid defense attorneys are just fine along with their clients.

Sent by adrianna | 2:42 PM ET | 06-20-2007

I want to be a public defender after I finish my last semester of law school in the fall. Public defenders where I live make roughly $30,000/year. I, like many law students, will have over $100,000 in student loans. I'm not great at math - but that ain't so hot. So, San Diego pd's may get paid well, but that is the exception, not the rule.

Further, many believe that pd's are only pd's because they are the dumb kids from law school who couldn't get better jobs. Not true. PD positions are, in fact, highly competitive. One of the reasons being that pd's get to do courtroom work right away, as opposed to spending 50-60 hours per week doing nothing but research and writing and never seeing the inside of a courtroom.

Finally, it is true that there are bad pd's out there - just as in any profession. To Adrianna, it sounds like you got a bad pd, and there are few things worse that could happen.

But it is also an incredibly tough job. Many pd's have over 100 open cases at any given time because pd offices in most states are understaffed - not the fault of pd's, but the fault of legislatures.

George, in response to your comment, I would guess that you haven't had much contact with pd's. People, innocent or guilty, deserve a defense. Please review the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments to our U.S. Constitution, then talk about defending rights. They are the rights of all American citizens, no matter what. If we let those rights slip for some, they will slip for us all. PD's defend not only their clients , but the American way of life.

Sent by Sarah | 3:20 PM ET | 06-20-2007

Sarah, I am quite aware of the constitution and I am not talking about people defending it. I am talking about people who get "impassioned" to get someone off that they know are guilty. Don't confuse Justice with letting the guilty go free for murdering someone. There are a lot of people out there who are now dead because some repeat offender got back into society to reoffend. I do not think that is cause for celebration. No one has a "right" to murder.

Sent by George from Oregon | 4:00 PM ET | 06-20-2007

People don't just get off on murder. The public defenders are not to blame for the police bungling a case. The public defenders are there to make sure everyone involved for the prosecution has done their job and innocent people don't go to death row for a crime they didn't commit.

Sent by Randy | 9:42 PM ET | 06-20-2007

Thank you for your story about Public Defenders. One reason I continue to be one (for over 20 years)is that it provides me an opportunity to help people every day. Interestingly, I've found that those most scornful of our role can be the first to be indignant and demanding when they or a family member gets on the wrong side of the law. Most of our clients are not sociopaths or antisocial personalities. In general only about 5% of cases go to trial. Most of the work is about assessing the case, determining if there is a problem with the arrest or prosecution, and then presenting some workable rehab plan for the prosecution and the court.

What we do see every day are the mentally ill, addicted, learning-disabled, mentally retarded, and those who have not necessarily have had the same opportunities that others have had. The vast majority of our clients were victims first, many from childhood.

We would do better to learn from our clients and their situation so we can go back upstream, deal better with the causes of crime, and provide better public safety, good use of scarce tax dollars, and save lives.

Instead we are cutting back in treatment, health and education to build jails and prisons. People want those for others but not for their friends and family. By the time they realize they need treatment instead of prison, it is too late.

Sent by Bob | 1:09 PM ET | 06-21-2007

As a public defender, I have heard (and read) each of the above comments and criticisms many times before. You asked what the best part of the job is... In my opinion, my job is to pursue justice. It is to try to force prosecutors, police officers, juries, and judges to follow the laws of this land. To ensure that the burden of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is met before someone is convicted and punished. In that way, I help to make this system just, and help those I defend avail themselves of the Constitution and justice itself.

Sent by Ruth | 8:17 PM ET | 06-21-2007

There are a couple best parts to being a public defender. One is defending people who, scorned by most of society, in fact are decent human beings who have made an poor impulsive decision and/or suffer from addiction. Only in my role as a pd due I get to meet this person and discover the truth which the rest of society does not know.
Second, having a jury of twelve "we the people" tell the government no, you cannot brand this person a criminal and punish him or her. As Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

Sent by Robert | 4:56 PM ET | 06-22-2007

As a PD I have also faced many of the comments expressed here before. It is easy to say you want to defend the Constitution but not "get "impassioned" to get someone off that [one knows is] guilty" but incredibly hard to describe the line to draw. Is it simply the zeal with which you approach your duty to your client, regardless of the results? Or would it be preferable to grudgingly achieve positive results for a client?

Contrary to many of the popular myths which circulate about how lawyers, both private criminal defense attorneys and PDs, get clients "off" no one gets off on technicalities. Those technicalities are Constitutional rights that have formed the bedrock of our criminal justice system for over 200 years.

As for the zeal with which the attorney approaches the evidence in a case, it must be this way. Our system depends on both sides presenting the best possible case they can construct. If the State simply cannot construct a case strong enough to withstand the crucible of trial then the State should not be permitted to convict that person of a crime. I have often posited to those who have brought these concerns to me that if an obviously guilty client is acquitted at trial the blame should be levied at the prosecutor or the police. Police officers and prosecutors are tremendously skilled at their work. Many have decades of experience. There are no new tricks that a zealous public defender could throw at them for which they should not be prepared. If the case which the police and the prosecutors construct cannot hold up at trial it is not the fault of the defense lawyer doing his or her duty to zealous advocate for a client.

Sent by David | 7:53 PM ET | 06-22-2007