Ought lawyerswho contrary to better knowledgedefend extremely evil criminalsto be considered extremely evil criminals themselves?
No.To decide about the extremity, the malice and the criminality of a suspect one needs at least two parties to look at the case from different angles, for a third party to reach a verdict which considers all possible aspects of a case. It is up to that third party to decide if any positive aspect is important enough to be considered, according to law.A defender who goes beyond his responsibilities as a lawyer can be prosecuted, fined or punished.Certainly, the fact that not all lawyers are nice people doesn´t really add to the perfection of the system. But then, no system is perfect and any declared perfect system should be mistrusted.Bertus
Of course, not! And I won't say why because not one of the lawyers has asked me to defend him/her...yet. Hence my unwritten (but brilliant) chapter on legal and moral rights.But I'll tell you one thing. Better ten criminals walking free than one innocent personn condemned and hung due to mispresentation.Et voilà! Vous avez une autre question, Monsieur Jeating? :)))))
Bertus,good points! Thank you.As long as A defender who goes beyond his responsibilities as a lawyer can be prosecuted, fined or punished, consequently he can be considered an evil criminal, though, can't he? :)Claude,the first paragraph lets the corners of my mouth start an expdion to the ear-lobes whenever I read it. Thank you!As for the second: That is why I am against death penalties.As for the third:What, however when someone unenforced (!) confesses a horrible crime, laughs at the victims and their affiliated and says he'd do it again?
I might be falling into a trap here. Do you have a special case in mind?I think that Bertus has answered your question. The defender's responsibilities is to present the full circomstances, the other side of the story. It's not to excuse a crime that the accused confesses to and brags about. Even the Nazis tried to escape punishment by blaming the one who gave the order, not themselves for obeying it.I don't see any sane person, in a court of law, acting as you describe. In that case, the lawyer would plead insanity, and the criminal would be confined to a psychiatric institution.Now if you wish here to discuss of war crimes, where nobody has yet been in a court of law, having to defend himself, there is no lawyer in that picture. Only a prosecuting public. Your question, at this particular moment, has no raison d'être.I was a very young girl when my brother terminated the Civil Law studies which had been interrupted by his participation in WW2. I not only questioned him relentlessly, but I read his law books laying around. And I was given the important job of counting the enormous number of words required for his thesis. When he finally opened his law office, he would joke that I could become his assistant. "I don't like quarrels," I said. "Si vis pacem, para bellum," he answered.
Claude,thanks for that. Much appreciated.No, I do have no special case in mind. It is - as the title goes - just a question.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sorry for deleting. But I had forgotten I has already introduced you to my brother (Noble Criminals: March 20-2008). He never needed defending. As a lawyer and as a soldier.
I had for "I has"...Of course.
"To decide about the extremity, the malice and the criminality of a suspect one needs at least two parties to look at the case from different angles, for a third party to reach a verdict which considers all possible aspects of a case"I often find someone else voices my thoughts better than I could, and this is one of those times :)
Claude,ahem ... why did you once again delete? I asked uncounted times. And would I therefore delete this? :)Ruth,same with me. Very often. :)And yes: Bertus put his point(s) very well.