Every lawyer s duty is to his client. For prosecutors, that client is the state. For defense attorneys, it s the accused.
it IS justice to try to get his client a fair trial. also, there are court rules and ethical obligations for all sides to share evidence before hand, this is called quot;discoveryquot;. to abdicate on making sure a trial is fair, whether or not a client is known to be guilty, is the greatest affront to justice I can imagine. If the case is that clear, then it is not really a very high bar to hold the prosecution to, after all, it is a man or woman s liberty, and hence all of ours, that we are talking about.
So, but thats the way it goes. The prosector must prove without a doubt that he is guilty. Its the defense attorney job to raise doubt. Most attorney do not want to know if you are guilty or innocent. I would rather have a guilty man out of jail, because sooner or later he will find himself behind bar than an innocent man behind bars. If you search the net you find more and more innocent men and women getting out of jail after spending years behind bar for a crime they did not commit. In Arkansas there is a case right now called the Memphis 3. It has come to lite that they might not have commited the crime and they have spent many years in jail.... So to respond to you yes its scary any way you look at it..
A lawyer s primary duty is zealous representation of his or her client. It is not the responsibility of a layer to help the other side. If the prosecutors don t do their job, that is their fault. The justice system would not function if both sides were working for the same goal.
I am afraid it is to his client, and unfortunately the majority of successful lawyers/solicitors can be very unscrupulous. On the other hand if they come up against an authority in a civil matter they are just as likely to let an innocent client down to suite their image etc.,
0 comments:
Post a Comment