and more about win at all costs? I don't think the founding fathers ever dreamed that one day attorneys would treat the law like a chess match against their opponent. Attorneys are more interested in winning than true justice (both prosecuting and defense). I am not saying defense attys should not defend their clients to the best of their ability, but when they are obviously guilty--why do they try to 'prove them innocent' instead of seeking JUSTICE? What can we do about it? Serious answers only please.
2007-01-13 13:03:55 · 7 answers · asked by Cherie 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I have NO problem with attys defending their clients rights to the best of their ability--that is their job. The problem I find is when they are guilty and the attorney believes their job is to get them off instead of getting them a lienent sentence for the crime they KNOW they are guilty of....(I know innocent until proven guilty)....but where is the common sense and protection of their future victims?
2007-01-14 01:03:15 · update #1
Winning is the whole point. That's why it's called an 'adversarial system'. Lawyers are adversaries, but are required to act within the bounds of ethics. A defense lawyer cannot knowingly put a lying witness on the stand just to win.
Defense lawyers don't have the goal of 'proving their client's innocence', rather they have the task of raising reasonable doubt. That is much easier. In order for a person to be found guilty, it must be shown that he committed the crime to the exclusion of all other possibilities. Defense lawyers just have to introduce other possible suspects, motives, circumstances, etc to reduce the prosecutor's case from 100% the guy did it to 99% the guy did it. If the State's case rests on 99% certainty, the defendant goes free (in a perfect world).
Any other shenanigans that subvert the code of ethics is not actually lawyering.
2007-01-13 13:29:12 · answer #1 · answered by normobrian 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Okay I am in legal, I deal in wine on the side but anyhow here is an honest answer for you, As an attorney it is not for us to judge whether or not they are moral or immorally conscience people/clients. There is many things for us to decide , but our primary duty is to interpret the law within the state, local and federal to the best of our ability, sure we can tell if a client is full horse crap but you know what they dont pay us for judging them, thats the judge's job we dont necessarily always defend them, we defend their rights the rights that the government has assigned, the criminal justice system is in fact an oxy moron but really you ned to place your self if all roles, what would you do if you were the judge, what if the client was your sister, mother brother etc.., what if you were the attorney, what would you do if you were the victim, the accused, you need to fully view the situation in its entirity, Hope that helps, sorry about grammatical errors, its bed time
2007-01-13 13:23:36 · answer #2 · answered by defenseonly 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've heard that "a jury is a group of 12 people- that will decide which party has the better lawyer"
I guess the other issue is a thing called zealous advocacy- even if a defense lawyer "knows" his/her client may be guilty; defend them to the best of their ability anyway.regardless
“Lawyers (are) operators of the toll bridge across which anyone in search of justice has to pass”
“Justice has nothing to do with what goes on in a courtroom; Justice is what comes out of a courtroom” ~ Clarence. Darrow
2007-01-13 13:21:31 · answer #3 · answered by ••Mott•• 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
beginning from even as? There are a million or 2 states the position you'll "examine the regulation" by using doing a form of prolonged clerkship in an modern-day regulation agency and under no circumstances truly attend regulation college yet i imagine that's a minimum of 6 years and which skill when you've the BS/BA. both way you nevertheless ought to bypass the Bar exam and maximum do no longer make it the first time so upload a minimum of 18 months earlier you'd be authorized to coach. What 's your hurry?
2016-10-31 01:05:29 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Attorneys have the job to do their utmost. It is the clients that dont want justice. Watch the Erin Bronkovich movie. PG&E did NOT want to pay for their callous disregard for the water pollution they were causing. Instead they covered it up and hid evidence and hired big gun lawyers. In the end their actions killed people. Did the board go to jail? DId the CEO? Did anyone even prosecute? NO. But someone did sue and got some justice.
Ask PG&E why they chose to be killers and you will have your answer.
2007-01-13 13:15:54 · answer #5 · answered by snarkysmug 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, even the most guilty criminals, because if they were not properly tried and convicted, then even you and I would be easily fasely convicted, ie., if the police and justice system are allowed to put the "guilty" away without trial, then what are you going to claim when they lock you up without trial, too? "Justice" does not mean the guilty go to jail, it means they were put through the so called justice system, guilty or not.
2007-01-13 17:23:34 · answer #6 · answered by alaskasourdoughman 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Justice has nothing to do with what is right or wrong, it's how can we process this case fast enough to get to the next one.
All in a day at the office!
2007-01-13 13:09:07 · answer #7 · answered by DB 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋