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.
Animal wrote:Using a Lawyer as an example of ethical behaviour?
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Return to Religion and Spirituality
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests