If you were a lawyer...

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Mirage, Feb 20, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    Would you have moral objections to defending somebody you knew was guilty? Especially if their crime was something horrible?

    I know I couldn't do it. I couldn't live with myself if I knew somebody was free because I was able to convince the jury that they were innocent.

    I would even have a time fighting for a reduced sentenced if I knew the person was guilty.

    Lawyers are required by law to keep secrets. If their client flat out describes a list of murders they committed, they would lose their lawyers license if they revealed that to anybody. Instead they have to fight for that person, all while making huge amounts of money.

    If you were a lawyer would you have trouble with defending people you knew were guilty?
     

  2. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    No, a lawyer's job is to provide all people with fair counsel. If he's guilty, the law will find him so; if he gets through, what would we do, resort to vigilante justice?
     
  3. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    Lawyers are out to make sure their clients get off with as little punishment as possible. Surely you don't think that lawyers want their clients to be found guilty if they think they can get them out of it. There is a reason they are often called snakes... ;)
     
  4. AngelsPeak

    AngelsPeak Wanna play?

    I couldn't do it, the money wouldn't be worth the guilt I'd be carrying around everyday.
     
  5. Steerpike

    Steerpike Registered Member

    If someone is to be prosecuted by a prosecuting attorney in a court of law, then they are entitled to a fair trial. If they are entitled to a fair trial, then they are entitled to representation by counsel. Therefore, if someone is to be prosecuted by a prosecuting attorney in a court of law, then they are entitled to representation by counsel.
     
  6. AngelsPeak

    AngelsPeak Wanna play?

    But this post has nothing to do with Hybrix's question.
     
  7. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    Steerpike, I know. I'm just asking if you would have a problem defending somebody you know was guilty.
     
  8. CMK_Eagle

    CMK_Eagle Registered Member

    Sure it does. If every defendant is entitled to legal representation, why should his lawyer feel guilty for defending him? The guilty deserve to be convicted because of the facts, not because they lack an understanding of the law.
     
  9. Steerpike

    Steerpike Registered Member

    Yes, it does, it is an unemotional and morally non-ambiguous argument which pertains to due process.

    I have no problem with due process as my argument indicated. Subjective appeals, which is what "moral objections" are about, are irrelevant.

    If the prosecutor does his job effectively enough and the judge and jury do theirs, then the guilty should still be found guilty.
     
  10. AngelsPeak

    AngelsPeak Wanna play?

    He stated the obvious.

    Andrew asked :

    and
    Steerpike did not answer the original question, instead he chose to state a fact anyone intelligent enough to respond to this thread should already know.
    ------
    The question was meant to provoke an emotional response...

    Would you or would you not be comfortable defending someone you know is guilty?

    It's a simple yes or no question, or you can explain your feelings on the subject, either way...you just may have to show a bit of emotion in your answer.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page