So is it un-ethical or immoral to defend a guilty client? Keeping in mind that legal ethics are simply guidelines for professional conduct and that morals are basically supposed to be truths about human "goodness" or "badness".
Is it immoral? Maybe, but I would say no. I also think that using the excuse "I didn't know he was guilty because I didn't ask" sounds like a frighteningly weak attempt to superficially vacate yourself of any kind of moral incongruence. I feel it impossible for any competent lawyer to NOT know his client is guilty, even if he has no input from his client. It's like saying, "Well I don't know that Europe actually exists because I have never been there." Duh...we know it exists because we have access to evidence that proves so. Maps. Books. TV. And who should know the evidence in a criminal case better than the defense of the accused?
Is it un-ethical? Absolutely not. And every state bar in this country will likely agree. Defense lawyer's duty is centered on aiding their client in presenting the best defense, regardless of guilt.
Our system requires that the defense use every trick in the book to make the prosecution prove it's case, immoral though it may seem to some. The stakes in criminal trials can be about as serious as they come; a person's very freedom is at stake. If the system is working, the prosecution will prove it's case despite the defense's best efforts to debunk it and justice will be issued...well...justly.
It is not a defense attorney's job to get his client off. People instantly assume that for varius reasons, but they are wrong. It is his job to present the best defense, of course...but more importantly, it is his duty to that makes the prosecution does it's job. People often blur that line start throwing around terms like "immoral" without understanding what is really going on.
why is our jury system fubar?
He should walk away if his client tells him that he did itSkorixor wrote:this paragraph makes no sense whatsoever...I can't figure what you're trying to prove...Jerrel wrote:I said if the accused told the lawer that he did it not if the lawer felt his client did it should the lawer walk away. I see it ethicly wrong to continue to defend a client from charges that you know for a fact, from your clients own confession, that he or she is guilty of. If a lawer feels the person is guilty fine thats what the lawer feels but he or she is duty bound to defend the person. As long as the accused does not confess to their lawers that they did it the accused has no worry about his or her lawer bailing on them.
first you say the lawyer should walk away
then you say he is duty bound to defend him
then you say that the accused shouldnt tell his lawyer so he won't bail
He should not walk away if he feels that his client did it
that clear
-
Jerrel
- Surface Marshal
- Contact
nopeJerrel wrote: He should walk away if his client tells him that he did it
He should not walk away if he feels that his client did it
that clear
because option #1 never happens
-
Skorixor
- Grand Moff
I get your point. Let me see if I can restate this clearly.
A lawyer is in the "moral wrong" for defending a client he knows is guilty if and ONLY if his client says, "I did it". This situation is only possible if, and only if, we accept that a lawyer is incapable of determining his own client's guilt.
If he honestly is incapable of determining his own clients culpability in the case, than he is an absolute shit attorney and an imbecile (which would also imply that he gets very little business in the first place, and can't really afford to just let go of cases because he feels morally obligated to do so, but that is another can of worms). By your proposition, lawyers are immoral for defending guilty clients, right? If so, then the lawyer who knows his client is guilty because of the preponderance of evidence (which should be blatantly obvious to the defense attorney, as he is required to understand all of the evidence presented against his client), but skipped asking the irrelevant phrase, "did you do it?" is "in the clear" morally?
No way. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either defending a guilty client is right or it is wrong. There is no mitigating factor, especially one so painfully meaningless as a three word phrase.
A lawyer is in the "moral wrong" for defending a client he knows is guilty if and ONLY if his client says, "I did it". This situation is only possible if, and only if, we accept that a lawyer is incapable of determining his own client's guilt.
If he honestly is incapable of determining his own clients culpability in the case, than he is an absolute shit attorney and an imbecile (which would also imply that he gets very little business in the first place, and can't really afford to just let go of cases because he feels morally obligated to do so, but that is another can of worms). By your proposition, lawyers are immoral for defending guilty clients, right? If so, then the lawyer who knows his client is guilty because of the preponderance of evidence (which should be blatantly obvious to the defense attorney, as he is required to understand all of the evidence presented against his client), but skipped asking the irrelevant phrase, "did you do it?" is "in the clear" morally?
No way. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either defending a guilty client is right or it is wrong. There is no mitigating factor, especially one so painfully meaningless as a three word phrase.
-
Krusshyk
- SWG Tales Founder
Long post but this is from the trial of the guy who had the bomb in his shoe on that airline.
Remember the guy who got on a plane with a bomb built into his shoe and
tried to light it?
Did you know his trial is over?
Did you know he was sentenced?
Did you see/hear any of the judge's comments on TV/Radio?
Didn't think so.
Everyone should hear what the judge had to say.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruling by Judge William Young, US District Court.
Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything
to say.
His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record,
Reid also admitted his "allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and
to the religion of Allah," defiantly stated "I think I will not
apologize for my actions," and told the court "I am at war with your
country."
Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below:
January 30, 2003, United States vs. Reid. Judge Young:
"Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes
upon you.
On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the
custody of the United States Attorney General.
On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison
on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutive with the
other.
That's 80 years.
On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years
Consecutive to the 80 years just imposed.
The Court imposes upon you each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000
for the aggregate fine of $2 million.
The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to
restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre
Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.
The Court imposes upon you the $800 special assessment.
The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply
because the law requires it.
But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.
This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes.
It is a fair and just sentence.
It is a righteous sentence.
Let me explain this to you.
We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr.
Reid.
We are Americans. We have been through the fire before.
There is all too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with
the utmost respect.
Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care
for individuals as individuals.
As human beings, we reach out for justice.
You are not an enemy combatant.
You are a terrorist.
You are not a soldier in any war.
You are a terrorist.
To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too
much stature.
Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney
who does it, or if you think you are a soldier.
You are not----- you are a terrorist.
And we do not negotiate with terrorists.
We do not meet with terrorists.
We do not sign documents with terrorists.
We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.
So war talk is way out of line in this court.
You are a big fellow.
But you are not that big.
You're no warrior.
I've know warriors.
You are a terrorist.
A species of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted murders.
In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you
first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered
where the press and where the TV crews were, and he said: "You're no big
deal."
You are no big deal.
What your able counsel and what the equally able United States
attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how
tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific.
What was it that led you here to this courtroom today?
I have listened respectfully to what you have to say.
And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of
unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are
guilty of doing.
And I have an answer for you.
It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record, it comes
as close to understanding as I know.
It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious.
You hate our freedom.
Our individual freedom.
Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we
choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose.
Here, in this society, the very wind carries freedom.
It carries it everywhere from sea to shining sea.
It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in
this beautiful courtroom.
So that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is administered
fairly, individually, and discretely.
It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously
on your behalf and have filed appeals, will go on in their
representation of you before other judges.
We Americans are all about freedom.
Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the
measure of our own liberties.
Make no mistake though.
It is yet true that we will bare any burden; pay any price, to
preserve our freedoms.
Look around this courtroom. Mark it well.
The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here.
Day after tomorrow, it will be forgotten, but this, however, will long
endure.
Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American
people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice,
not war, individual justice is in fact being done.
The very President of the United States through his officers will have
to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters
can be judged and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that
evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of
justice.
See that flag, Mr Reid?
That's the flag of the United States of America.
That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten.
That flag stands for freedom. And it always will.
Mr. Custody Officer. Stand him down."
So, how much of this Judge's comments did we hear on our TV sets?
We need more judges like Judge Young, but that's another subject. Pass
this around. Everyone should and needs to hear what this fine judge
had to say. Powerful words that strike home.
God bless America.
Remember the guy who got on a plane with a bomb built into his shoe and
tried to light it?
Did you know his trial is over?
Did you know he was sentenced?
Did you see/hear any of the judge's comments on TV/Radio?
Didn't think so.
Everyone should hear what the judge had to say.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruling by Judge William Young, US District Court.
Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything
to say.
His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record,
Reid also admitted his "allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and
to the religion of Allah," defiantly stated "I think I will not
apologize for my actions," and told the court "I am at war with your
country."
Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below:
January 30, 2003, United States vs. Reid. Judge Young:
"Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes
upon you.
On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the
custody of the United States Attorney General.
On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison
on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutive with the
other.
That's 80 years.
On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years
Consecutive to the 80 years just imposed.
The Court imposes upon you each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000
for the aggregate fine of $2 million.
The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to
restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre
Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.
The Court imposes upon you the $800 special assessment.
The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply
because the law requires it.
But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.
This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes.
It is a fair and just sentence.
It is a righteous sentence.
Let me explain this to you.
We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr.
Reid.
We are Americans. We have been through the fire before.
There is all too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with
the utmost respect.
Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care
for individuals as individuals.
As human beings, we reach out for justice.
You are not an enemy combatant.
You are a terrorist.
You are not a soldier in any war.
You are a terrorist.
To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too
much stature.
Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney
who does it, or if you think you are a soldier.
You are not----- you are a terrorist.
And we do not negotiate with terrorists.
We do not meet with terrorists.
We do not sign documents with terrorists.
We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.
So war talk is way out of line in this court.
You are a big fellow.
But you are not that big.
You're no warrior.
I've know warriors.
You are a terrorist.
A species of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted murders.
In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you
first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered
where the press and where the TV crews were, and he said: "You're no big
deal."
You are no big deal.
What your able counsel and what the equally able United States
attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how
tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific.
What was it that led you here to this courtroom today?
I have listened respectfully to what you have to say.
And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of
unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are
guilty of doing.
And I have an answer for you.
It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record, it comes
as close to understanding as I know.
It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious.
You hate our freedom.
Our individual freedom.
Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we
choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose.
Here, in this society, the very wind carries freedom.
It carries it everywhere from sea to shining sea.
It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in
this beautiful courtroom.
So that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is administered
fairly, individually, and discretely.
It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously
on your behalf and have filed appeals, will go on in their
representation of you before other judges.
We Americans are all about freedom.
Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the
measure of our own liberties.
Make no mistake though.
It is yet true that we will bare any burden; pay any price, to
preserve our freedoms.
Look around this courtroom. Mark it well.
The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here.
Day after tomorrow, it will be forgotten, but this, however, will long
endure.
Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American
people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice,
not war, individual justice is in fact being done.
The very President of the United States through his officers will have
to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters
can be judged and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that
evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of
justice.
See that flag, Mr Reid?
That's the flag of the United States of America.
That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten.
That flag stands for freedom. And it always will.
Mr. Custody Officer. Stand him down."
So, how much of this Judge's comments did we hear on our TV sets?
We need more judges like Judge Young, but that's another subject. Pass
this around. Everyone should and needs to hear what this fine judge
had to say. Powerful words that strike home.
God bless America.
-
E-bo Obi
- Grand Moff
- Server
Legends
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests