Lawyers - Part 2.

[ainwood]

Imagine that you are a trial lawyer. Your client has been charged with a heinous murder, but the evidence is largely cirumstantial and you are very confident that you can get an aquital.

Half-way through the trial, during a private conversation with your client, you realise that the client is in fact guilty.

Could you continue to defend this client to the best of your ability?


On the wider issue, could you defend someone who you know is guilty?

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by ainwood
Could you continue to defend this client to the best of your ability?

On the wider issue, could you defend someone who you know is guilty?

Absolutely not. Which is why, depsite constant prodding from anyone that hears me argue, I don't want to be a lawyer
I can't defend the guilty to the best of my abilities. The way I hear lawyers justify it is it is their DUTY to justice to defend blindly; if they were to make the judgement of guilt and punishment they are subverting the role of the prosecution, judge and jury.
On the other hand, I can't imagine how a truly moral person can feel comfortable; even if the theory is sound, it would still cause me to loose sleep at night.

 

[Apollo]

For me it would depend on the crime and the attitude of the defendant. If they were charged with rape or murder and in private they talked about how much they enjoyed it and what a thrill it was then I wouldn't be able to represent them to the best of my ability. If they were charged with armed robbery and talked in private about how they wanted to be given a second chance to lead a good life, then I probably would be able to represent them.

 

[andyo]

i am a trial lawyer - i try civil instead of criminal cases - but i did do pro bono criminal defense work in law school - i understand what you all are saying, but you have to look at it from our prospective. just because we are defending a criminal, doesn't mean we are condoning or supporting what that person did. Think of it this was - if you work in convenience store, and sell someone cigarettes - are you going to have an ethical problem because you are helping them smoke, which is probably killing them? no, you are just doing your job - while this may oversimplify it, in some respects that it what an attorney is doing - they are doing the best they can for their client. Alot of attorneys also think of as that by fighting hard for the defendant, they are ensuring the system works, and that they don't agree with the defendant, but agree that the defendant deserves their fair day in court

 

[ainwood]

Yep, completely agree that everyone should have their day in court; innocent until proven guilty etc (unless you're in the French legal system! - or am I wrong on that ).

I just think it would be very difficult to just 'be professional'. I guess that it goes with the job.

I guess it is reflected in the argument I heard from a lawyer as to why they were against the death penalty. It was something along the lines of "you see these murderous villains, and you see them with their kids. Seeing the interactions, you can see that they do have good in them." It was a bit more than that, but I suppose it is what was said about them wanting to be given a second chance. I guess it would be easier if you forced yourself to see the good in the person.

It would be really hard to see petty criminals go down, and the really scummy ones get away tho.

 

[scorch]

i would still represent the dude, but i would make sure that he gets guilty. (by not putting in as much of an effort)

 

[Simon Darkshade]

No, I could not continue defend the individual whatsoever, and would even contemplate reporting the confession.

 

[Apollo]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
No, I could not continue defend the individual whatsoever, and would even contemplate reporting the confession.

And why is that? To weed out the competition?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Apollo


And why is that? To weed out the competition?

What? The argument about unswerving integrity and devotion to the Code and Measure doesn't hack it with you? Well, I had to try it
Always have to keep the competition under control; it benefits your own operation. :vampire:

 

[Toasty]

Absolutely. The fact that he is guilty in a legal sense makes no difference whatsoever in my job. I would be eating at my insides throughout the whole time, but the job of the defense lawyer is to defend to the best of their ability regardless of the clients status.

Feels like he's been watching to many The Practice reruns .

 

[allan2]

"No, I could not continue defend the individual whatsoever, and would even contemplate reporting the confession."

Which would be illegal--you'd be disbarred for it. And what's more, even after your disbarment the confession still couldn't be used by the prosecution in court (since it was given to them illegally), so you will have essentially accomplished NOTHING. So if you can't hold to the rule of attorney-client privilege, you shouldn't be a lawyer.

Don't worry, I'd want to do the same thing and hence, I am NOT a lawyer. I assume you aren't either....

But I can see that SOMEONE has to do this dirtywork. If we didn't require lawyers to defend clients to the best of their ability, I could just see lawyers making deals with the prosecution ("you let me win this one, and I'll let you win against the next client" or something), and truly innocent people getting hosed in the process. It is EQUALLY the job of the prosecution to prosecute to the best of their ability--so when a bad guy slips through, who is to blame? Not NECESSARILY the defense lawyer.

And remember, sometimes the innocent get convicted too. It works both ways. But with strict discipline by all officers of the court, the system, though never PERFECT, will be closer to perfection than it will be if there is no such discipline.

And like I said, I don't think I'd have the DISCIPLINE to follow procedure always--which is why I'm NOT making the big bucks....

 

[allhailIndia]

I am trying to get into one of the best law schools in Asia, the National LAw School Of India University, in Bangalore and this topic has intrigued.

I believe that as a lawyer, you are being paid to represent your client and not play judge and jury with yourself. You have to prove that you are a person who can be trusted to work hard for a client. Remember, in the end, it is the client who pays you.

BY betraying your client, it will seem that you are trying to grandstand and show off your honesty, principles etc.

In the Mahabharata as well Arjuna has a similar problem. He has to fight his cousins in order to get back what was his and his brothers, but that also means he has to fight his teachers and uncles who are fighting alongside his cousins who have done great injustice. It is then that Lord Krishna counsels him that he was put on this earth as kshatriya or a warrior for a reason, to be able to take up arms and fight for a cause, not like a coward try to run away from battle.

So to lawyers undertook their job, because they wanted to wotk in the judicial system and give people the opportunity to be heard, to be represented in a court of law. It is their duty to voice their client's part of the story only!!

 

[Simon Darkshade]

"No, I could not continue defend the individual whatsoever, and would even contemplate reporting the confession."

"Which would be illegal--you'd be disbarred for it. And what's more, even after your disbarment the confession still couldn't be used by the prosecution in court (since it was given to them illegally), so you will have essentially accomplished NOTHING. So if you can't hold to the rule of attorney-client privilege, you shouldn't be a lawyer."

The fact that acting ethically and honestly is viewed as illegal shows how miserabley and royally f**ked up the legal system in question is.
I am not a believer in it, nor do I see the merit in defending someone who admits they are guilty to a heinous murder.
So, the system must be removed.

"Don't worry, I'd want to do the same thing and hence, I am NOT a lawyer. I assume you aren't either...."

Hell no, I'm further up on the evolutionary scale than that!

"But I can see that SOMEONE has to do this dirtywork. If we didn't require lawyers to defend clients to the best of their ability, I could just see lawyers making deals with the prosecution ("you let me win this one, and I'll let you win against the next client" or something), and truly innocent people getting hosed in the process. It is EQUALLY the job of the prosecution to prosecute to the best of their ability--so when a bad guy slips through, who is to blame? Not NECESSARILY the defense lawyer."

I have no problem with people being defended up to the best of their ability, but not if it requires outright malversation. I do not see this caveat as the beginning of a slippery slope, but rather an attempt to put proper morality and principle back into the world, bit by bit.

I don't think the adversarial system is the best we can get for justice.
The law and justice are two separate concepts, and the latter has been ignored too much.
So, we at the Stalin Institute have been having a lengthy pow-wow on developing a better system. The work continues, to protect the innocent and the victims, and to impale/convict the guilty.

 

[allhailIndia]

We in INdia have perfected the system. All the guilty guys get to be politicians

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Or cricketers

 

[allhailIndia]

We had the Australian Model to follow so we cannot take credit for that

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Two words: Mohammed Azhuraddin

and another three words: Carl Hooper, 233

 

[allhailIndia]

2 more words :Ricky Ponting

and 2 more wordsV.V.S LAxman, 271


and you lost after making us follow on

It is always funny when somehow Simon and myself turn a mundane topic into a tirade about each other's cricket teams

 

[ainwood]

A few more words -

Off-thread spam.


John Wright.