Dilemma

With a final exam in Criminal Procedure yesterday, I actually had to study the material.

Going through the possible Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment violations that can be perpetrated on a defendant . . .

Made me think about this.

If you had a good friend tried and convicted of murder;

And you were convinced he probably is guilty in some way, shape, or form;

But you recognized that he'd also suffered from ineffective assistance of counsel, a denial of Sixth Amendment right to counsel on an appeal of right, due process violations from an obviously coerced confession, and quite possibly a Fifth Amendment violation to boot. . .

And he was an indigent 15-year-old when this all occurred.

Would YOU feel some affirmative ethical obligation, after getting your J.D., to try and take up his case . . . to get him a new trial?

And so I have to ask--

If an individual commits murder, has he not denied the most basic right imaginable to another? So who is he to complain about the violation of his rights protected by the Constitution?

Right?

Or, well, rather . . . what kind of "justice" system would we have were we to give free reign to a group of individuals that can hide behind a badge in their denial of rights, regardless of the victim . . . ?

Damn, I'm sounding like such a bleeding heart.

I just can't stop having these dreams . . .