I know and appreciate your reasons for posting this, but his likening himself to a priest takes one h*ll of a lot of ego and nerve. True, a priest doesn't go on television and say, "Let me tell you what my penitent told me in confidence."
But NEITHER does a priest go on television and attempt to shift the blame for a heinous crime onto other people he knows are innocent, and in the process, destroy their reputations and lives-- Deliberately, knowingly and without so much as a qualm of conscience.
A different "morality." It sure is.
BTW Indigo, I hope I didn't sound snarky. I'm just frustrated that the word "defense" -- a good, even noble-sounding word -- has been so degenerated by attorneys that it includes the act of dragging innocent bystanders into the battle, using them for human shields, putting them through bloody hell, and--ideally--making one of them sacrifice their freedom or even their lives.
In my opinion, that's not defensive, its offensive--literally and figuratively. Unfortunately, I have no solution to suggest.
I know exactly what you mean, Friday, because I feel the same way! The only part about that interview that helps me at all is the part where Dershowitz questions himself, even admits losing sleep.
Logically, I understand the need for a defense. Like you, I just can't wrap my mind around how a defense lawyer can use every dirty trick in the book to clear a client that is clearly guilty--especially of the murder of a child. Joel Steinberg comes to mind...that case tortures me to this day.
