Wouldn't that be considered a lack of ethics and integrity?
2007-08-01 15:34:50 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No, it's not a lack of ethics when their ethical obligations as attorney require them to do so.
An attorney cannot knowingly present false evidence -- so they could not assert that the person is innocent if they know the defendant is guilty.
But they can require the prosecution to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and they can assert any valid (non-frivolous) affirmative defense. Both of those are not only ethical but expected.
2007-08-01 15:40:02 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Ethics have nothing to do with it. Even guilty criminals have a right to a fair trial under our justice system. The reason murderers and child rapists get off even when the evidence is overwhelming is because of little things called technicalities. I admit that its bullsh*t but it is accepted under our rule of law. Now I may sound like a bleeding heart liberal so I'll give the real reason I think good lawyers defend people with whom there is no doubt of guilt. Its the money and attention. If they can get a jury and judge to acquit a person when god and all the angels know he/she is dead to rights guilty then that lawyer will have to turn down clients. If you knew you were guilty of a serious crime and you could go to prison for life or recieve the death penalty would you trust your luck with a public defender or go to the lawyer with the best reputation in getting not guilty verdicts from jury's. These type of lawyers do it for the money and for no other reason. They could care less about the client, the constitution, the victims, or if god even cares. For them its all about the money and power.
2007-08-01 22:52:02 · answer #2 · answered by rollmanjmg 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Very rarely does an attorney actually KNOW that the party they're defending is guilty. However, an attorney may represent somebody who they know is guilty because
1. they think the law is unjust (think of Darrow representing Scopes when he was on trial for teaching kids about evolution--is that unethical?)
2. they feel sorry for the person
3. they're a public prosecutor and were assigned to do so, or
4. they need the money (I wouldn't consider this unethical... lawyers have to eat too!)
2007-08-01 23:07:28 · answer #3 · answered by Lynn M 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because everyone is guilty!
In my long tenure as a prosecutor, I can honestly say I've only had maybe 6 people a year that are not guilty. Many more are NG based on technicalities, but in reality are guilty of crimes.
The American Justice System is built on the principle that everyone deserves representation. Law school embibes attorneys with the fact that even Osama Bin Murderin should be entitled to an attorney under our laws. As heinous as it would be, someone would have to defend him.
2007-08-01 22:41:37 · answer #4 · answered by LawGunGuy 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because the US Constitution guarantees everyone a right to a fair trial, and criminal defendants the right to representation.
How can you know they are guilty until all sides have been heard on the matter?
Also, prosecutors have the burden of proving someone's guilt (innocent 'til proven guilty and all that jazz). Attorneys for criminal defendants make sure that they meet that burden.
2007-08-01 22:41:08 · answer #5 · answered by Esmerelda 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
due process. i'm not sure i would want to have a case with cora and the prosecuter that responded
2007-08-01 22:45:29 · answer #6 · answered by here to help 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Dearie, I was going to answer this but I must say that Greg has nailed this one down quite well.
2007-08-01 22:51:12 · answer #7 · answered by Wrong number 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
For the money! That's a no-brainer.
__________________________________
KrazyKyngeKorny(Krazy, not stupid)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
2007-08-01 22:57:26 · answer #8 · answered by krazykyngekorny 4 · 0⤊ 5⤋
MONEY...MONEY...FAME...MONEY
2007-08-01 22:44:01 · answer #9 · answered by Spades Of Columbia 5 · 0⤊ 5⤋