The lawyer s job is to zealously represent the client. If both sides are operating efficiently then justice will be served. If the prosecutor, for instance, cannot prove the case against the defendant and the jury acquits, then justice is served. No system is all-knowing and perfect and there is no foolproof way of determining guilt or innocence. We have even seen cases where individuals have confessed to crimes but they didn t actually commit the crimes. We constantly try to improve the criminal justice system but its fallibility reflects the imperfections of any system created by humans to try to determine such difficult and weighty matters. I don t know what you suggest that lawyers do. Should they walk into court, having determined guilt or innocence by their own individual standards, and then act accordingly?
No. That is not their job. An attorney s job is to zealously, but ethically, represent the interests of their clients. However, the prosecution has a duty to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense, and should not prosecute a case in which they know the defendant did not commit the crime. Unfortunately, many DA s and AUSA s forget the moral obligations, and want to convict everyone who is charged with a crime, innocent or not. The trial of the La Crosse players from Duke University is a good example of this blind zeal.
No. Lawyers are hired to ensure that every defendant or plaintiff gets a fair trial. A judge is ordered to uphold the law, but the law says everyone has the right to an attorney.
nope their job is to insure that the defendant/prosecutor gets a speedy and fair trial.... nothing more nothing less. edit: it is the judges choice on the justice....that is why they are a judge.....
If the criminal is paying the lawyer enough, he isn t going to want justice. (Not everything is what it seems.)
0 comments:
Post a Comment