i mean, if you're a public defender, you've *got* to defend someone you may know committed the crime they're accused of, but if you're a prosecutor, you're duty bound not to prosecute a case that isn't reasonably provable, right?
2007-08-18 10:13:06 · 7 answers · asked by kelleygaither2000 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No. It is not morally better to be a prosecutor. Both positions are equally moral. Both have clients who must, under the US Constitution have their side of an argument heard by a trier of fact (whether judge or jury).
A public defender must divulge inculpatory evidence or risk punishment.
A prosecutor must divulge exculpatory evidence or risk punishment.
Crimes must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Crimes must never be merely "reasonably provable".
2007-08-18 10:54:35 · answer #1 · answered by Silent Gams 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Assuming each acts ethically, neither is more moral than the other. A defendant is entitled to a presumption of innocence and the state must prove its case to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the lawyer knows his client is guilty. The only question a defense lawyer needs to ask is, does the state have a case beyond a reasonable doubt? Are there reasonable doubts concerning the evidence or witnesses?
There are more prosecutors (and police witnesses) who skirt their moral duty than there are defense lawyers who do, because they have political and power isues that get in the way of the truth.
2007-08-18 10:28:40 · answer #2 · answered by thylawyer 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Great question. Assuming both are good at their jobs, the public defender will usually be putting criminals back on the street to victimize more innocent people, while the prosecutor will be trying to put criminals, not innocent people behind bars. That being said, there are evil prosecutors like Mike Nifong in the Duke "rape" case and the idiot in Oregon who is prosecuting 12 year old boys as sexual criminals because they participated in "Butt Slap Day" at their school. Other boys and girls participated, but these two have been singled out for terrible treatment.
2007-08-18 10:21:17 · answer #3 · answered by Jeff A 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Prosecutor, i don't see how a police officer could be a offender protection lawyer, variety of fashion a regulation degree. anyhow, even assuming you should bypass from being a cop to a criminal expert in simple terms reason you wanted to, does not recommend you would be qualified. courtroom very distinctive than the line. Even attorneys with years of journey have a not ordinary time negotiating all of the regulation and intricacies of Constitutional standards. upload to that a offender protection lawyer must be super in front of a jury. Jury could like and have self assurance you for any protection to fly. ultimately and maximum intense, a offender protection lawyer could have an open thoughts and have self assurance that issues at the instant are not constantly what they seem. the main obtrusive answer isn't constantly the final one. do you already know any cop who thinks like that?
2016-11-12 20:41:25 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
while even someone who is guilty deserves a defense, I personally would prefer to be a prosecuter
2007-08-18 10:48:45 · answer #5 · answered by Rob M 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they should be on equal footing.
each of them is doing their job so that the system works.
2007-08-18 11:10:41 · answer #6 · answered by brian 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
if you 'know' they did the crime, you don't necessarily have to defend them, you can convince them to plea bargain. .
2007-08-18 10:17:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋