2006-11-02 15:46:34 · 33 answers · asked by relaxplease2005 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Of course I approve. If we didn't have lawyers then you could be arrested and tried for anything without a defense. Everyone is entitled to a defense. What if you were innocent? Your lawyer would be your best friend and only friend in some cases.
2006-11-02 15:50:24 · answer #1 · answered by RIDLEY 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Our civil rights include the assumption that we are innocent until proven guilty. Lawyers represent criminals, because the criminals also have this civil right. It is hard to understand, but before a criminal actually is convicted of a crime he/she is assumed innocent, and is therefor not a criminal... yet. It does appear that laws are made to protect criminals, and that lawyers who defend them are wrong, but we need to have these civil rights in place so that innocent people are not railroaded into being convicted of crimes without the ability to have legal representation. I believe that it is a necessity to have legal defense, but I also believe that once convicted the guilty party should not be sent to a country club prison in ANY case. I think also that the law should apply to all people equally, and not just for those who cannot afford to buy their way out of prosecution.
Our laws and rights are based on the assumption that they will be applied by honest and just persons, but it isn't always the case. There are times when a lawyer will seek to represent a criminal in a high profile case that will afford that lawyer publicity and fame. I believe that criminals should get the best defense possible, and when they are convicted we can be sure that they are infact... guilty as charged. The everyday ordinary person does not now the law and their rights, so we don't get the proper services in a lawsuit. I feel that if someone has a personal lawyer... they need a lawyer for a reason. The ethical question here is how can a lawyer HONESTLY defend a person he/she knows is guilty of the crime.
2006-11-02 16:09:36 · answer #2 · answered by Jay M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the Bill of Rights, Amendment 6(?) gives the accused the right to have a lawyer. Note that the word is "accused." This includes the innocent AND the guilty. But I understand your question. You want to know why a lawyer should represent a person even though they might know that that person is guilty. Well, a lawyer is supposed to keep the defendant's secrets. It's like a contract or something, it's also called trust. So they can't just blurt out to the judge that their client is guilty. That's violating everything. Sure, it's wrong to defend someone you know did something wrong. But it's unfair to just make judgments based on a crime. The defendant isnt evil, and he/she has his/her side of the story, too. It is the job of a lawyer to defend the person no matter what. They are supposed to try their best to help out the person. Besides...if the person really is guilty, the truth comes out in the end. Even if the guilty party sneaks their way out of that trial, there will always be another one, since offenders are usually repeat offenders...they dont do things only once. If they did do something only once, then there would be no point in putting that person in jail, as jail is for reform. A lawyer has to suck it up and do his/her best, and hope that justice wins in the end. If he/she didnt do that, then there would have been no point in there being a lawyer at all.
Do I approve of it? I'm half and half, really. I believe in the rights of the accused, but I'm also concerned that the lawyers might be willing to lie and let criminals run free just for money. But that's life. Somehow, things just pan out in the end. So leave things be. It is no use trying to change wat u cant change. If you really believe in justice and God, then you should believe that a criminal will get his/her punishment in the end, in one way or another.
2006-11-02 18:29:00 · answer #3 · answered by fliptastic 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Under the Constitution even criminals are entitled to representation. I believe everyone should have an advocate (lawyer) to ensure they get a FAIR TRIAL and that their rights are respected. So I do approve of that. I strongly support a person's right to representation even if that person is a criminal.
What I absolutely DESPISE are criminal defense attorneys who stretch and twist the truth, falsify facts, and take advantage of weak or weak minded jurors to put criminals, particularly violent criminals, back on the streets. O. J. Simpson's "dream team" is a perfect example of what I am talking about. They went much farther than making sure O. J. got a fair trial. They gave an obviously guilty murderer, and they knew he was guilty, his freedom. For money. What they did was legal, perhaps, but unethical and immoral in the extreme.
2006-11-02 16:05:14 · answer #4 · answered by Don P 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you had been charged with a crime, and knew you were innocent - maybe the rest of the world would see you as a criminal - would you not want someone to stand up for you ?
One of the greatest things about living in the free world, is being, under the law, innocent until proven guilty. Everyone charged with a crime is not necessarily guilty. Thankfully, rich or poor, past record or not, in a free country they are entitled to qualified defence. Without it, how can justice be truly seen to be done?
Of course some real criminals get off with a good lawyer's talents. But don't forget, that lawyer may have just as many, if not more innocent people on his acquittal tally.
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”
2006-11-02 15:58:47 · answer #5 · answered by belmyst 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
They represent criminals because it is the criminal's constitutional right to have a fair trial with a state appointed attorney. You can be one of the smartest people in the world and not know the ins and outs of the legal system. Attorneys are usually specialists in whatever area so the criminal can be represented on an equal scale to the prosecution. I approve of the system. If we were just going to throw people in jail WITHOUT fair trial, there's not really any need for the whole judge and jury system anyway.
2006-11-02 15:49:59 · answer #6 · answered by robtheman 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If the defendant confesses their guilt to their lawyer, then the defendant still needs protection from other possible false accusations as well as fair punishment that is tailored to that specific individual's crime. If they did not have proper representation, they run the risk of being unfairly accused and receiving a punishment that doesn't fit the crime. Remember, no matter what crime a person commits, they don't deserve unlimited suffering. Especially considering that many criminals are incarcerated for drug use or other relatively innocuous crime alone.
2006-11-02 15:58:37 · answer #7 · answered by kim b 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes i approve of it cuz some ppl r actually innocent, even if most werent every 1 should get a fair child, if lawyers didnt represent criminals everyone that was falsely accused would be thrown in jail, and if they are guilty than hopefully the defense will be able 2 prove it
2006-11-02 15:49:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
In a free country everyone deserves a fair trial. Unfortunately criminals come in all classes and the more money you have it seems you have a better chance of getting out of serving time. Lawyers have the job to proove the person is innocent of crime. If you were wrongly accused you'd want someone who can show that.
2006-11-02 15:49:58 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well they obviously represent criminals for the money. I started going to law school...but only wanted to become a prosecutor, because I knew I could never represent someone who is a rapist or a murderer. Some lawyers will say they represent criminals because they deserve a fair trial and the right to prove their innocence, if in fact they are innocent, but we all know that the majority of the time, someone facing a murder charge, probably did it. I just couldn't stand by that and try to get them off. I have family out there too, and wouldn't want to willingly free a murderer who could one day kill my family too.
2006-11-02 15:49:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋