As I wish to become a lawyer, there is a question which has been
torturing me for a while: how can we morally defend a man who is guilty? The prejudice
that often underlies this question is that lawyers are amoral people who seek
to make money by defending criminals… But, people are not always criminals (!),
and so it is necessary for someone (the lawyer) to be as impartial as possible in order to defend someone who, a priori,
is not guilty. Anyway, it is not
up to the lawyer to judge, it is up to… the judge!
Most of the time, lawyers answer this question by saying that a
criminal often confesses to his crime and that the goal of the lawyer is not to
discuss his innocence or guilt, but the sentence, so that it is the least severe
possible.
But, from a moral point of view, is it right to defend anyone you
know is guilty? The answer is that morality is a matter of personal ethical judgement. The lawyer’s job is to ensure that the Law is applied to everybody equally. His
personal feelings do not come into it. A lawyer does not pass moral judgement
on his client, he has to ensure a fair judgement by the court.
But, why defend a “lost cause”, someone who is obviously guilty? Well,
it is not for the satisfaction of avoiding prison for the criminal. Rather, it
is to obtain the most suitable sentence; because the lawyer knows the accused
best, he is the person who can say what the appropriate sanction should be.
Practicing law is, I think, a noble occupation...
Links:
No comments:
Post a Comment