Ask Your Question today
Suppose you were a lawyer and had chosen to defend someone suspected of murdering a small child in cold blood, because you genuinely believed in them not being guilty. What if during the trial, you somehow found out that they WERE indeed guilty as sin, would you go on defending them, doing the best you can to get them back on the streets again or wouldn't you?
Since I believe the US legal system is as screwed up as our financial system, I probably wouldn't be in that situation.
However, as it is the job of the defense attorney to defend his client to the best of his ability, whether the client is innocent or guilty, then that is the job that should be done. The personal views of the defense attorney should never enter into the equation, period.
But we are all people and what is right may prevail over what the law requires.
I would try and convince said client to own up to it and plead guilty after obtaining a good plea bargain. I wouldn't do anything less than 10 years before a chance of parole though. When a lawyer takes a case like that he/she should realize that no matter the turn of events, they still gave their client their word that they would do the best they could for them.
For me I would turn that into an opportunity to do the best I could for them morally, spiritually, and mentally.
However if the client refused, I believe I would have to drop the case due to the moral conflict it would arise in myself.
One remark, two questions:
1. I know the system indeed requires the defense to have a lawyer who represents them, but I think it takes a special kind of sleazeball to try and get someone acquitted who they KNOW killed a child in cold blood. Personally, I would drop them like a brick.
2. Wouldn't you care that in the case you got them off, they might very well kill again?
3. Isn't morality a bit more important than the system?
1. Yes, but if you live in a culture where lawyers are allowed to start influencing the course of justice with their own morals you open up to the possibility of corruption much more and you actually end up giving lawyers a lot *more* power than they have now. Also, if I remember rightly there are all sorts of mentions in international law that the accused always has a right to legal representation. Even child killers have some rights.
2. Honestly, yes; I would care. But I wouldn't care enough to over-rule the points I made in the paragraph above.
3. No, the morality concerning one case is nowhere near as important is the stability of the whole country's justice system.
Read my response to BLAh if you want to know my reasoning. I agree that it should be about finding out the truth, but lawyers who actually represent the interests their client instead of their own morals are absolutely a necessary part of finding out the truth.
As an aside, if the lawyer knows some new evidence he should officially stop representing the client (another lawyer will do it instead) and submit his new evidence formally.
In a perfect world of course that would be ideal. But in reality, it is impossible to ever prove with 100% certainty what the "truth" is.
Our system is not the cleanest, but it least it works in the real world and is fair. We give the accused the absolute best defense possible, and pit that against prosecutors who are also trying their hardest to prove their case. Then we just see how things shake out.
That's the job of a lawyer. However there is a difference between pleating guilty and pleating not guilty and in this case you have to pleat guilty.
Basically that means you say "yes, my client has done that, but this is why he has done it". Often committed crimes are far more accepted if you tell the story behind it. And then try to get the best out of it.
Ha, the simple answer is that, even if I wanted to, I can't (assuming we're talking about the US legal system).
Here's a good article that explains why I can't: <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/04/pulling_out.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics...</a>
Yes you did. You let a child get murdered. You are saying you agree and that its ok to murder a child as long as you get paid enough. So you are letting a murderer get away. I guess you don't have any morals though so that kind of thing would never bother you would it? If someone kills your kid you are going to think back on this. I unlike you believe that if you commit such awful acts that you should be punished for it. I also believe these rules apply to all people regardless of age, gender, sexuality or skin tone. Also you act like we are all fucking defense lawyers and we are not you fucking retard. Why I would never be a lawyer for such things. The world is not black and white.