meaning turning down cases because you the persons guilty, or refuseing to prosecute because you know their innocent. at a point if you continually turn down cases wont you lose money and wouldnt people less people want you 2 defend them? unless their innocent and i doubt their is that much innocent people out there 2 make me succesful
2007-01-02 05:26:25 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I wonder who all these people who think defense attorneys are such scum will go to if they are ever charged, rightly or wrongly, with a crime.
You speak of ethics. It is unethical for a defense attorney to refuse to represent someone merely because the attorney thinks that person is guilty. For one thing, it is not the attorney's job to make that decision--it is for the accused to decide if he wants to admit a crime, and if not, it is for a jury to decide if he is guilty, with all the protections that our democratic society gives to every individual against the power of the government.
The guilty are as entitled to legal representation as anybody else. It is unethical to knowingly present false evidence, but it is the foundation of our legal system that the accused can demand that the government follow the rules it has enacted, and present evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before taking away somebody's life, liberty, or property. Do you believe it is unethical to assist somebody in demanding that the government make the showings that our law requires?
Remember, however, that 95% of people charged with crimes eventually admit guilt of some offense. It is the defense attorney's primary job to make sure that the person admits only the crime committed (which is not necessary the crime charged), and that the punishment is appropriate for that person. (Maybe those who disparage defense lawyers would rather do this themselves, despite a total lack of knowledge or training?)
It is unethical for a prosecutor to bring charges against a person when the prosecutor is convinced the person is not guilty, and I have seen many prosecutors refuse to file charges, or dismiss charges, when guilt is in doubt.
So, the answer is that it is very possible to be a successful attorney in the criminal justice system and remain ethical. In fact, since an attorney's greatest asset is his credibility with clients, judges, and prosecutors, it is probably impossible to be unethical and also be successful.
2007-01-02 06:11:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm a criminal defense attorney and I can represent, and have, people accused of rape, pedophilia, and other sex and drug crimes and have peace of mind. The thing is this: The US Constitution guarantees everyone charged with a crime the right to a fair trial---that's my job--to make sure the trial is fair. I do that by trying to keep out evidence collected illegally (search and seizure--4th Amendment) and by getting my client to trial quickly and to make sure the jury knows that my client is innocent until proven guilty--that the prosecutor (or State) has the job of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that my client is guilty and it's not my job to prove his innocence, because he's already presumed innocent. I make sure my jury understands that during vior dire.
So--in essence every client you serve as a defense attorney is innocent when they walk in your door.
2007-01-02 05:49:19 · answer #2 · answered by kathylouisehall 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a point where you decide what is ethical. What maybe ethical is doing what you were hired to do. Or maybe even taking the cases that you don't agree with, but using the law to help it not be as bad on the other person. If you know they are innocent, build a case against them that might help to prove that.
2007-01-02 05:32:57 · answer #3 · answered by Donkey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its well known that the morals of a successfull criminal lawyer is liken to that of an alley cat,eating the life of his prized rat,while trying to retain an air of decorum.
2007-01-02 05:50:11 · answer #4 · answered by siaosi 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, try one day to refuse to prosecute a person becuase you know they are innocent, everything's based on evidence not on your opinions
2007-01-02 05:30:03 · answer #5 · answered by Yulia 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I seriously doubt it. You could probably do it if you were indepdently wealthy, but if you had to put food on the table, I doubt it's possible
2007-01-02 05:32:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You'd be walking a very fine line.
2007-01-02 05:34:40 · answer #7 · answered by robert m 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋