Even if there is video proof of someone killing another person, it will need to be judged in a court of law to determine the circumstances, to see if it was premeditated murder, self-defense, or anything in between.
The sentence should be commensurate to the circumstances and the facts.
Maybe the victim had threatened him, or maybe he was sleeping with his wife, or something, to be judged and taken into account.
Sure, but there is a difference, in the example you mentioned, between a self-defense case, manslaughter, insanity, premeditated murder, etc.
If someone attacked you and you ended up killing them in the following fight, that's self-defense.
If you accidentally, unwillingly, unknowingly, or uncontrollably killed someone, that's manslaughter or temporary insanity.
If, say, you killed someone for payment (hit), or you kidnapped and killed a stranger because you like killing. That's premeditated murder.
There is a significant legal and social difference between those things; Even though the end result is the same, someone being killed that is, in all of them.
If, on the other hand, let's say, for example, someone kidnapped a child and was caught later on with the child in his\her house with clear signs of being molested or rape. That's not much open for interpretation, the crime is done and we know it's done. Further, there are no external factors that would prompt such a crime or excuse it.
Another example is human traffickers if they were caught in the act, trafficking lets say kidnapped girls for sex slavery. What's more in there to be left for a trial? What possible excuse could there be for such crime?
The point of having a lawyer is part of the process of determining if someone is guilty and things like chain of custody and the reliability of evidence suggest that someone should always, at least in some nominal form, have legal representation. This would apply even if the evidence is strong and the amount of procedure is a somewhat separate issue from whether or not they get representation in the first place.
True, but guilt is not always open for doubt; Sometimes, the guilt of a person is already known in advance with undeniable evidence.
The flaws of this model are revealed when pushed to its extremes. As is the case with any model of conduct or system might I say.
Take for example mob bosses, everyone knows who they are, everyone knows they're guilty in a whole array of crimes that just a handful of them would be more sufficient to justify the death penalty, yet they always keep getting away because they are given the luxury of a trial where they can use legal loopholes to get out.
Now, I'm not saying we should dispose of the right to a trial in all crimes or conducts; What I am saying is that there should be certain clearly defined exceptions that can nullify this right if fulfilled.
Second, regarding Hillary's famous example. One issue here is not that she did it but that she laughed about it later. If it's your job and it's in line with perceived values of fairness then you can, in theory, do it without finding it funny.
In what way defending a horrible crime when there is an admission of guilt by the offender qualify as legit or morally acceptable?
Being your job is not an excuse, on many occasions, soldiers are given order to commit massacres and war crimes and it is their job to follow these orders. It does not, however, stop them from being considered war criminals.
They can regret it, not find it funny, and feel ashamed of it, sure; Still, they're war criminals, the crime was done, and punishment will be dealt regardless of regret or shame.