Criminal Defense Attorneys and The People They Really Protect

You have almost certainly been engaged in a debate of criminal defence lawyers at some stage in your life, or at a dinner party, a birthday party, or as part of daily casual talk. And you were either supporting or attacking prosecution lawyers at the moment. Some criminal defence lawyers are merely dishonest people who would defend everyone to make a fast buck, others do not care whether a convict is released to hurt others again, while even some might simply lack a conscience and may support even repeat child molesters. I acknowledge with many people that not every criminal defence attorney is fine. Unfortunately, persons intoxicated by pathological greed, a disrespect for humanity’s well-being, and a loss of consciousness that results in a disconnect between society’s mores and their own are found in virtually every occupation. Check The Hampton Law Firm P.L.L.C.

However, it’s crucial to note that criminal defence lawyers are representing more than just “criminals”; they’re still defending your civil rights. The importance of such a definition might not be as apparent to the common citizen as it is to a law student, but the following explanations illustrate certain protections that have been defended for the public good. The position of the government and its ever-increasing focus on identifying and eradicating criminality versus the role of people and their rights to be safe in their “persons, homes, books, and effects” is fraught with difficulties. More precisely, the government, whether deliberately or accidentally, infringes on “the people’s” privileges under the Fourth Amendment, which safeguards citizens against “unreasonable searches and seizures” absent “probable cause.”

Many times, I’ve been asked if the criminal justice system allows suspects off the hook just because police officers found the body or murder weapon in an environment that they weren’t meant to be. The obvious retort is that these citizens are ignorant of the security from the government that our forefathers imagined as they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment defends us from police invading our residences and rummaging through our possessions based on a hunch or much less, regardless of whether there is any real evidence of illegal behaviour.

“The public,” which comprises both the guilty and the innocent, have the freedom. When somebody suggests something like “who cares if they break into his home; he shouldn’t have been selling drugs in the first place,” it’s necessary to note that it may have been your house they broke into. Remember that most of us, like me, are unconcerned with a criminal’s privileges being breached. The key argument here is that if law enforcement has no boundaries, the rights of entirely innocent people would be violated. We are left with criminal defence lawyers protecting our interests by their “criminal” victims and the errors police commit as they invade an innocent person’s house are not as commonly litigated.