Rough draft of podcast part 1

Lawyers defend people who are obviously guilty because it is their role to uphold the principles of justice and ensure that everyone receives a fair trial. The legal system is built on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and legal representation is necessary to safeguard individuals' rights. Factors such as the severity of the crime, strength of evidence, personal beliefs, and socioeconomic pressures may influence a lawyer's decision to defend a client. Ethical dilemmas may arise when lawyers represent clients whose actions they find morally reprehensible, but they are bound by professional obligations to provide representation. Lawyers may also take on high-profile cases for financial or career advancement, which can raise ethical concerns. The case of Robert Kardashian and the O.J. Simpson trial illustrates the complexities and consequences of defending a guilty client. Despite doubts and tensions within his own family, Kardashian chose to defend his longtime friend. La Hello, my name is Rispombo, and today we'll be presenting a question you may have never thought about. My question is, why do lawyers defend people that are obviously guilty? In this podcast, we will be looking at this question and going into detail. I'll be taking a dive into lawyers in general and their ethics. I'll also look into some reasons of why lawyers do what they do. Do they defend people for the money, is it for the fame, or is it because they want to be the best lawyers in their state? We will also look into the process of why it may or may not be necessary for criminals to have lawyers. More generally, we will look or we will take a look at why exactly we have a law system in general. There are also habits that are learned and sociological factors that can be a cause to certain lawyers making certain decisions. Stay tuned to get a reasoning of why lawyers defend the most brutal criminals. So first, the foundation of legal system is built upon the fact that you are innocent until proven guilty. This goes for every single case, even cases so simple as speeding to homicides. This is to exist to safeguard individual's rights and ensure that the law is given fairly under the book of law. Without legal representation, individuals accused of crimes may be forced or may face issues in front of the justice system. That is the reason why we have lawyers, which is their role to step in and defend the accused regardless of guilt. It is essential that the integrity of the legal process is held. This leads to criminals that have committed the worst crimes, right? Even they get provided or bring lawyers to defend themselves. The reason that this is is because it is essential to prevent the erosion of fundamental rights and to hold the integrity of the legal system. By providing any sort of defense, lawyers are required to help maintain the balance between the power of the state and the rights his or her client is being accused of. Although the presumptions that innocence serves as a safeguard against the prosecution and ensures the guilt is established is beyond reasonable doubt. Of course, there might be factors that influence the legal representation of some lawyers. There are many factors that influence a lawyer's decision to either defend or not defend a client. This can include the severity of the actual crime, the strength of the evidence, or the personal belief. Some attorneys may refuse to represent certain clients based on morals or their ethics. Others might feel that they should take on a challenge for reasons such as financial gain, professional recognition, or the desire to test legal boundaries. In general, the duty of the lawyer is to provide a competent representation and uphold the principles of justice even when it might go against their morals. So let's go into some ethical dilemmas lawyers might have. Lawyers often have to grapple with many very hard decisions, but some may be ethical in something that has to do with their thoughts and beliefs. Some cases can be, you know, when lawyers represent clients that they find their actions morally reprehensible. Despite there might be personal reservations, attorneys are bound by professional obligations to provide comment, representation, and uphold the principles of zealous advocacy. Zealous advocacy basically means to defend the client within the bounds of the law. The tension between personal values and professional dues could potentially lead to internal conflicts and moral compromises. Although the ethical standard in the rule of law is there to ensure the fairness and legitimacy of the legal system, other factors such as socioeconomic factors are at play when talking about lawyers in defending the guilty. There are many economic pressures, competitions with the legal industry, and the pursuit of financial success that influences a lawyer's willingness to defend certain clients. Societal perceptions of success and prestige may take it so lawyers take on high-profile cases for political or career advancement, even if it's not ethically right in order to advance their career. However, ethical considerations should also guide the decisions of that of a loyal or a legal professional. No lawyer should look at his financial incentives or their professional ambitions when looking at which cases to take on and which cases to not take on. So the case we're going to look at is the Robert Kardashian and the O.J. Simpson case. So Robert Kardashian was an American attorney and businessman that died in 2003. He has immense wealth, or he had immense wealth, where he left over $100 million in fortune after his death. He's also the first of the Kardashian family to really get his name out there and start the Kardashian legacy. His relevance to this question is his involvement in the O.J. Simpson case. O.J. Simpson was Robert Kardashian's long-term friend and actually renewed his license for representing him in court. You know, following the case, there were a lot of repercussions with Robert Kardashian, and there were some serious doubts about his decisions. So we're going to review the O.J. Simpson case and look at Robert Kardashian's perspective and see how his decisions and actions affected his life. So throughout this analysis, I will be taking the clips out of an interview done by Barbara Walters and Robert Kardashian. So it all started when O.J. was being charged for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. After Robert Kardashian heard about this, he instantly reactivated his law license and came to aid his longtime friend, O.J., in this case. Following these decisions, there became worries within the Kardashian family with Caitlyn Jenner, who felt that O.J. did the murders and felt that because of this trial that their family was getting split up based on which parents to side with. The reason the tension was so great was because Kris Jenner was, in fact, best friends with Nicole, making the situation 10 times more costly for Robert to defend O.J. Robert Kardashian was not the only lawyer working to defend O.J. There were two other notable lawyers, being Robert Shapiro, who got paid roughly $100,000 to $1 million a month for the case. Robert Shapiro, during the case, had expressed his doubts, offering to a plea deal in order to have O.J. serve less time if found guilty. O.J.'s lawyers even felt as if there were doubts in the trial. The main cause of the lawyer's doubts were the blood DNA on the scene. There are about 108 exhibits of DNA evidence, including 61 drops of blood, that are all presented at a trial. Due to this, there became multiple doubts within the lawyers defending O.J. Here's a clip of the lawyers. Okay. That's this case, right. So, lastly, competition between the lawyers also fuels, you know, such might be. All right. So, after reviewing the case, we obviously have defensive criminals accused of even the worst crimes are also supposed to receive a fair trial. Lawyers are able to surpass their ethical dilemmas and social pressures to fulfill what their job as a lawyer. Understanding why lawyers defend the guilty might require examination of the legal principles and ethical considerations. By showing ethical standards and advocating fairness to lawyers, lawyers play a huge role in ensuring the integrity and legitimacy of the legal system, even for the worst criminals.