Again, SHG is not technically wrong in this comment:
You sound as if you’ve been overloaded to the point of head explosion. Tough nuggies. This is reality, and it’s messy. Tolerance for ambiguity is one of the foremost qualities needed to practice criminal law. Not everyone has it.
It would be almost axiomatic: by nature, the criminal defense position would have to be more sensitive to nuances and ambiguities. The prosecution narrative is always blunt: the defendant is a no-good criminal scumbag. The defense doesn’t assume the burden of the reverse narrative – that the defendant is a great civic hero.
But once again there’s more than a little irony going on. A tolerance for ambiguity should not become perverted into commitment to ambiguity, a slavish devotion to ambiguity as an overarching principle of action and a framework for understanding anything, no matter what the evidence is. Dare we say it, that winds up being – well – an unambiguous fealty to the principle of ambiguity. It’s oxymoronic.
SHG has been explaining himself well the last few days. We’re grateful, albeit somewhat frustrated and maybe a bit saddened: he stubbornly clings to a failed and rapidly receding professional self concept that has ill-served him, his clients, the profession and the justice system itself. He’s unreflective about that, and about the possibility that his dominance of a tiny corner of the internet, a part of the “blawgosphere” – has stagnated, aged and withered just as he and his self-concept have. One’s a metaphor for the other, maybe.
He has exhausted his shtick, methinks. The gritty, gutsy trench lawyer, the lazy and self-entitled youth that aren’t sufficiently in the SHG mold, and maybe a dozen or so other tired themes have run their course. It isn’t a weariness that has come out of nowhere, of its own accord. SHG brings it with him, in more ways than one.