I believe that this place has discussed this issue before, but I don't believe I've ever asked this question; however, it seems that there is general agreement that "evil" people, like Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein, amongst others, deserve to be "brought to justice," and, generally, we agree for that to mean to be brought to trial.
Of course, unless you wish to conduct a Stalinist puppet trial, which we also look down upon, a "trial," by nature, requires adequate representation and the *possibility* that the defendant may not be found guilty. So, thus, why do people get mad when high profile lawyers, like the above, take on the world's most reprehensible people? After all, at least you can say that he will put up a good fight, and, thus, when a guilty verdict does come in, it will not be due to a puppet trial. Plus, at least in the U.S., having inadequate representation will often get a trial thrown out!
Thus, it is my view that, while it may seem incomprehensible to want to defend "evil" individuals, like Saddam, it is absolutely imperative for justice to be served. After all, the evidence is what should determine their fates, and, after all, the evidence is overwhelming...correct?
Melon
They felt really cool but she didn't like feeling that way. She couldn't sleep at night or live with herself knowing they were free to do it again and hurt someone else.
...that could actually be rather interesting to watch! 
