Does Alan Dershowitz Realize He Doesn't Have To Keep Standing Up For Pedophiles? - Above the Law

"A lawyer has to zealously advocate for their client. But after the case is done and the client has, you know, died... attorneys don't have an obligation to keep defending them. Just because an attorney shouldn't bad mouth a former client, doesn't mean they have to keep going on TV years after the fact to try to explain why pedophilia is really a matter of postal code, actually!"

"Alan Dershowitz on Epstein & Ghislaine: "There was no sex trafficking ring...They said he's a pedophile because he had sex with a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old. That would mean he was a pedophile in Florida, but not in England." He then says Epstein's a "3 or 4" on a scale of 10 for sex offenders.-"

"Per Dershowitz, Epstein clocks in at a "3 or 4" on a 10-point scale of sex offenders. Setting aside that maybe a professor of law should not be issuing Pitchfork scores for sex criminals, this glibly av"

"Even if "there was no sex trafficking ring," a claim that even the sliver of files that have escaped Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's active cover up cast in serious doubt, that's a complete thought without having to delve into defending sex with 16-year-olds. Yes, Dershowitz has had a curious fascination with getting rid of consent laws since the 90s, but that doesn't mean he has to gratuitously draw attention to his own bad ideas."

A lawyer’s duty to advocate zealously applies during a case, but obligations do not extend indefinitely after a client dies. Avoiding bad-mouthing former clients does not require continued public appearances to justify alleged crimes. Alan Dershowitz responded to testimony by Howard Lutnick by arguing that Epstein’s conduct should be understood differently, claiming there was no sex trafficking ring and that labeling Epstein a pedophile depended on geography. He also described Epstein’s severity on a 10-point scale of sex offenders. The response criticizes the approach as unnecessary, inappropriate, and focused on consent-law arguments rather than addressing the underlying allegations.

Read at Above the Law