Dershowitz defends his defense of bad people

COURTESY YALE COLLEGE STUDENT UNION LEGAL WIZARD: Alan Dershowitz's, LAW '92, past clients inlcude O.J. Simpson, Leona Helmsley, and Klaus von Barlow.

On Mon., Feb. 1, acclaimed Harvard law professor and defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz, LAW '62, spoke at the Yale College Student Union on the topic "Why good lawyers defend bad people." The Yale Herald sat down with Dershowitz and interviewed him about his views on ethics, Judaism, and the law.

The Yale Herald: You said in your speech that you would represent "a worthless son of a bitch on their way to hell" and later in the discussion said that part of your decision to take a case was the intellectual challenge. With that attitude, do you run the risk of elevating your skills of elocution above your sense of justice?

Alan Dershowitz: No, I wouldn't take a case unless it supported my sense of justice. But then, I think I'm entitled to pick the cases that interest me the most. I mean, I'm a human being. I don't only write books about issues that I think are important, I write books about issues that interest me. That's a human quality that I would
recommend to everybody--do things that interest you.

YH: Do you ever feel that in an effort to defend a client you have had to split hairs to evade the truth, as President Bill Clinton, LAW '73, did?

AD: But I'm a lawyer--I would never say what Clinton said. I would only say the truth in my defense. There are all kinds of ethical rules. I can never mislead a court or say anything improper. I would use my efficacy skills on behalf of my client.

YH: Do you think the fact that you're a famous law professor and lawyer influences how you're viewed in court?

AD: No, I don't think so. I think in the end, judges read the briefs, look at the arguments, and make their decision. I don't think it depends on the personalities of lawyers.

YH: You taught a course last semester at Harvard on biblical concepts of justice. How do these notions of justice influence your own ideas?

AD: Very much so. I spoke today at the Yale Hillel, and I talked about the famous story of Abraham arguing with God about the sinners of Sodom. I talked about how Abraham was arguing not only on behalf of the innocent in Sodom, but also the guilty. He said, `If I can persuade you that there are 40, 30, 20, 10 innocent people in the city of Sodom, will you save everyone on their behalf?' The answer was yes, which seems illogical unless you look at it from the point of view of process. Process thinking requires you to say it's very hard to distinguish the guilty from the innocent, so we have to have a system, and the system can't have too many innocents convicted. That's why we have a rule that says better 10 guilty go free than one innocent be accused.

YH: In that case, what are your views on the availability of equal justice for people of all classes?

AD: I take half of my cases pro bono and I urge others to also. It's not that the rich get too much justice, it's that the poor don't get enough. I recommend cases to lots of people and I urge my students to take cases involving poor people.

YH: In your most recent book, The Vanishing Jew in America, you advocate embracing a multiplicity of Judaisms. How do you think that will aid the unification and survival of Judaism?

AD: I don't see unity as the virtue, I see diversity as the virtue. I think that people can be Jews in different ways and I want to maximize the number of ways in which people can remain within or partake of their tradition in some way while also partaking of the broader American and world tradition.

YH: Do you think such diversity could lead to the breakdown of Jewish
tradition?

AD: I think it's much harder than it was in the old days when everyone was the same kind of Jew. I think the challenge is much greater, but you can't tell people how to live their religious and cultural lives anymore. I think what we have to do is try to thrive on our diversity instead of making it a negative.

Back to News...