The American system of justice often requires that someone take on a job which many find distasteful--defending the indefensible. A recent case can be found in the Oklahoma City bombing case in which many asked how the lawyers for Timothy McVeigh, accused (and later convicted) in that case, could stand up in court and defend a man whose actions had caused the deaths of more than 160 people. One problem with this point of view is that it is a complete misunderstanding of the justice system, and in addition, it is a language problem in that the accused is not indefensible at all. The action may not be defensible, but the person who committed the act can be and must be defended.
Those who say that certain actions leading to a court case are indefensible may be right about the actions themselves. An act of murder cannot be defended--it is simply wrong. We might argue about what constitutes an act of murder, discussing fine points as to when an act is murder, when it is manslaughter, when it is accidental, and so on. In any case, though, it is not the action that is being defended in court but the person accused of committing the act. He or she is brought before the bar of justice and is the target of all the power of the state to inflict punishment, and when faced with such an uneven battle, the individual has the right to be defended, to show that he or she has not performed this act, that he or she should not be punished, or that there are circumstances which show that the punishment should be less than the maximum.
Many agree that it is the person who is being tried and still claim that their lawyer is defending the indefensible, for anyone who would commit an act such as blowing up a building full of people cannot be defended. This, of course, assumes the outcome of the case before it begins. The cornerstone of the American system of justice is that the accused is innocent until proven and found guilty in court, and b...