Illuminati-R-Us

God and ethics really don't have anything to do with each other. Religion and ethics don't automatically go hand-in-hand.

Agreed.

Neither do ethics and morals. Sometimes, to be ethical, you must do something immoral. I have always thought those kind of dilemmas sucked.

Who decides what is ethical and/or moral? What is moral for you almost certainly ain't moral for me. Same with ethics.

A god and ethics most certainly DO go hand in hand. If you beleive in a particular god you also are accepting those religous principles. If you follow those principles, you are ethical within your own reference frame. Again, likewise for morality.

I was thinking more along the lines of professional ethics. For example, a defense attorney who knows his client is guilty is ethically bound to not reveal that information. He must zealously defend his client regardless.

Lance wrote:I was thinking more along the lines of professional ethics. For example, a defense attorney who knows his client is guilty is ethically bound to not reveal that information. He must zealously defend his client regardless.

Using a Lawyer as an example of ethical behaviour? Dude. Seriously.

Ethical behaviour for a defense lawyer who knows his client is guilty would be to NOT argue that the client is innocent. I have no problems with him trying to get the client the lightest sentence possible, though.

Animal wrote:Using a Lawyer as an example of ethical behaviour?

Good point.

Animal wrote:Ethical behaviour for a defense lawyer who knows his client is guilty would be to NOT argue that the client is innocent. I have no problems with him trying to get the client the lightest sentence possible, though.

Defense lawyers almost never argue that their client is innocent. They argue that their client is not guilty. There is a difference.

Take O.J., for example. Was he innocent? Not very likely. But was he not guilty? Absolutely! And I supported that jury's verdict 100%.

Lance wrote:

Animal wrote:Using a Lawyer as an example of ethical behaviour?

Good point.

Animal wrote:Ethical behaviour for a defense lawyer who knows his client is guilty would be to NOT argue that the client is innocent. I have no problems with him trying to get the client the lightest sentence possible, though.

Defense lawyers almost never argue that their client is innocent. They argue that their client is not guilty. There is a difference.

Take O.J., for example. Was he innocent? Not very likely. But was he not guilty? Absolutely! And I supported that jury's verdict 100%.

I do not disagree with your statement. I disagree with your conclussion that this is ethical behaviour. Getting a client off on a technicality when the lawyer knows the client is guilty is simply wrong. Doing the same thing when the lawyer really believes in the innocense of the client is a different story.

Animal wrote:I do not disagree with your statement. I disagree with your conclussion that this is ethical behaviour. Getting a client off on a technicality when the lawyer knows the client is guilty is simply wrong.

Regardless, the professional ethics of the legal profession require it. To do anything less leaves the defendent an "Ineffective Assistance of Counsel" appeal which he will likely win.

(I used to be married to a lawyer.)

Animal wrote:I do not disagree with your statement. I disagree with your conclussion that this is ethical behaviour. Getting a client off on a technicality when the lawyer knows the client is guilty is simply wrong. Doing the same thing when the lawyer really believes in the innocense of the client is a different story.

So situational morality -- which makes court process very difficult. See, the whole thing is set up to weed out the trash; should you let someone get beaten up, and his family threatened, and then not get him off, even if he *is* guilty? His rights were basically ignored in that moment, and then he's carted off, because his lawyer and the police "believed" he was guilty.

Which is a big point; this is a matter of "belief". There's a reason for a two-lawyer, judge, jury system.

Lonewulf wrote:

Animal wrote:I do not disagree with your statement. I disagree with your conclussion that this is ethical behaviour. Getting a client off on a technicality when the lawyer knows the client is guilty is simply wrong. Doing the same thing when the lawyer really believes in the innocense of the client is a different story.

So situational morality -- which makes court process very difficult. See, the whole thing is set up to weed out the trash; should you let someone get beaten up, and his family threatened, and then not get him off, even if he *is* guilty? His rights were basically ignored in that moment, and then he's carted off, because his lawyer and the police "believed" he was guilty.

Which is a big point; this is a matter of "belief". There's a reason for a two-lawyer, judge, jury system.

Situation ethics. Interesting. Justify letting a child rapist loose when his lawyer knows, beyond a doubt, that the defendant is guilty. There are cases like this. Once of the most infamous happened in San Diego where the defendant told his lawyer he did it and also confessed that he killed the little girl. The lawyer knew exactly where the body was burried, but argued that his client was innocent. After the dude was found guilty, the lawyer used the the body location information as a way of reducing the fucker's sentence.

Errr, good point.

Lance wrote:

I was thinking more along the lines of professional ethics. For example, a defense attorney who knows his client is guilty is ethically bound to not reveal that information. He must zealously defend his client regardless.

Not exactly true - at least in California. If a lawyer knows his client is guilty can not reveal that information (without his client's permission) but he can not allow the introduction of evidence that his client is not-guilty (i.e. another person did it) during the defense or in cross examination. Most of the time what happens if the lawyer hears such a confession he removes himself from the case. One notiable exception locally was the David Westerfield case in San Diego where the lawyer in question was talking about a plea bargin in exchange for the whereabouts of the little girl's body. The body was found before the deal could be done but the lawyer did not have the balls to leave the case and argued that someone else had commited the crime. Luckily the jury wasn't too dumb and found him guilty - the lawyer had to face a discipline hearing from the bar after complaints were filed.

The OJ lawyers never AFAIK knew he was guilty and presented the defense accordingly.

Bill,
I beat you to it. The Westerfield case was the one I had in mind but I couldn't remember the dude's name.

Sorry Animal - I did not connect you were talking about that case since the body was found by the police before the trial and Westerfield got the dealth penalty and the lawyer actually had to face a hearing on his conduct.

Bill EE wrote:Sorry Animal - I did not connect you were talking about that case since the body was found by the police before the trial and Westerfield got the dealth penalty and the lawyer actually had to face a hearing on his conduct.

Don't confuse the issue with facts.
:)

Sorry :(