Who said guilty people don't deserve basic rights?
The overwhelming consensus is that everyone deserves a fair trial and that justice is done. The issue is that a guilty or not guilty person not get justice due to technicalities and slick "lawyering".
The real issue is that such technicalities and 'slick lawyering' are able to influence outcomes. Which indicates there are major flaws in the system, since they are apparently readily available to be exploited. As such, people like Harley are doing a service in bringing such technicalities and loopholes to the forefront, allowing for future; - better prosecution, - better sentencing. This, in the long-run, will ensure proper functioning of the system.
You guys are way too hung up on single cases, and don't focus enough on the bigger picture. Harley is but a gear in an immense adminstrative machine, which has the power to dramatically change the lives of those being prosecuted, whether innocent or not. The technicalities on which a gun-point robber gets off today, may drive the prosecutor to not make any mistakes in the next case involving a serial-killer, and so on. Harley is providing a service, not only to his clients but the system as a whole.
Does this mean that Harley will be happy if lets say a child-molester gets off on a technicality (who otherwise would be found guilty), to then go on to molest? No. Ofcourse not. Harley is responsible for the proper functioning of the system, himself included. And only that. His task ends after a verdict is made. He is not responsible for the behaviour of his clients after that, however putrid it may be.
Once again, this does not mean Harley is devoid of opinion or bias. Simply that to perform his job well, such feelings should not influence outcomes.
If the above example of the hypothetical child molester does indeed go on to molest children and is later found guilty, I'm sure Harley will reflect.
However, he cannot be held accountable for the actions of others. Look at convicted criminals who are repeat offenders?
When a sentence is served they are re-introduced into society on the premise they have 'paid for their crime'. Yet if they then go on to commit another crime, how will you argue then? The sentence wasn't high enough? The prosecutors didn't push hard enough? Ofcourse not, because you assume people are responsible for their own actions, and that they learn from their mistakes and won't repeat them. Yet, some still do.
Unless we go back to less civil ways where people are hung or flung into a river whilst bagged, such permanent solutions do not exist. And we are to belief in the better nature of man. Maximizing the efficiency of the justice system, in an attempt to deter future violations and crimes. Harley, and others, are doing just that.