You are a criminal defense attorney who has been asked to represent two youths who engaged in "gay bashing" against a homosexual male. The two defendants, both males, were propositioned by the victims in a bar near a college campus. In response to the solicitation by the victim, your clients brought the victim to a motel under the guise of a romantic encounter but once the three arrived, the two youths attacked the victim, beating him with fists, feet, and clubs. The victim sustained serious injuries and was in a coma for ten days.
The two suspects were arrested a few days after the assault and contacted you to represent them. You have taken a strong and very public stance against gay people and same-sex marriage. You have also tried to influence Congress to repeal hate crime legislation, stating that it unfairly discriminates against some types of victims. This public stance was the main reason the two suspects contacted you to represent them.
Questions
Do you agree to represent the two suspects or turn them down? Why?
If you agree to represent the two suspects, could you separate your personal biases against gays and adequately represent them?
Do you think your public (and personal) stance on homosexuality will adversely affect the jury? If so, in what ways?
Should there be a different standard of justice on the basis of race, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation? Why or why not?
Would you use the homosexual advance theory in this case? Why or why not?