 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Kayla
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | Emmitsburg, Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 369 |
| First Name: | Kayla | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Atheist, kind-of Mormon, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 12:03 am |
|
Okay, I admit it. I am a Law and Order junkie. SVU, Criminal Intent, whatever the original one is called.
So, watching a particular episode tonight, I was struck by this thought. The defense attorny, bound to her client, was protecting him despite his guilt (which she knew, the DA knew, and everyone knew...). Of course, such was her duty.
But... what is the morality behind defending someone who is guilty of criminal activity?
I can't figure it out. Because, I agree that everyone deserves a fair trial and a fair defense. But, if I were a defense attorny... I don't think I would be able to live with myself, defending someone who has admitted their guilt to me, and knowing that it was through my work that this person walked.
What do you guys think?
*personal musings*
____________________
I believe, Lord, help my unbelief.
Jesus, I trust in You!
There's not a lot of job security for us after death. I suppose that's one advantage of being a philosopher. - Peter Kreeft
http://kayla23mount.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1357 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 12:08 am |
|
| Everyone is entitled to due process. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a judicial system. It is up to the prosecutor and the jury to do their jobs also. IMO
|
|
|
DrDave
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 226 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 01:52 am |
|
I too am a bit of a Law & Order (which was the name of the original series) junkie. Just to show how contrary I can be, I also have major problems with the legal system. Often these and other shows have (contrived) circumstances where as you describe a defence lawyer is put in the position of defending a client whom he/she/it knows to be guilty.
One episode I watched recently resolved the situation by the defence asking a question that allowed in a piece of evidence for rebuttal that had previously been ruled inadmissible. Simultaneously I felt like rejoicing that the perpetrator would be found guilty for his crime and sullied by the actions of the lawyer that (apparently deliberately) failed in his duty to defend his client to the best of his abilities.
It is easy to characterize these murderers, molesters, rapists etc as monsters that should be disposed of what is hard is to recognize that as a species, as a race, as a nation, as a religion, they are part of "us". It is this facet of their nature that the defence must latch onto. "This person must be treated with the same rights and dignity that I would wish to be treated with, for they are us"
As for the legal system? Well, I haven't come up with a better one in the last 20minutes (although I've always been a bit of a fan on benign dictatorships  )
Regards Dave
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1357 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 02:44 am |
|
| Guilty or not guilty is only a part of the process. It takes a learned attorney to know if his/her client is being railroaded, and what recommendations are fair and viable as to sentencing, etc. There is a lot of gray area, it's not always black or white, completely guilty or not guilty. My husband was in law enforcement before retirement, so I have a bias toward the prosecution side, but I do think our system goes as far as possible to make sure no one is unfairly convicted or sentenced unjustly. That wasn't true up until recently. A lot of people, especially blacks and underpriveledged, got a raw deal in the courtroom. But also, I remember the day O.J. Simpson was acquitted, everyone where I worked was flabbergasted. We just couldn't believe it. That was a travesty of the judicial system. How could those attorneys sleep at night? On a pillow of money.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2033 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 04:03 pm |
|
Having once served on a jury in a case that exactly matches your description, Kayla, I can tell you that the defense attorney who knows his client is guilty still has the duty to serve as a devil’s advocate. He must do what he can to assure that the facts of the case determine the outcome.
In the case I dealt with, the attorney was limited by the prosecution’s overwhelming testimony (including eyewitnesses) to “what if” speculation. He did his best with what he had to work with. We decided the case in seven minutes. Did we jump to conclusions? No. Afterwards, the judge divulged that the defendant had a prior record of convictions for violent crimes (this was a knifing).
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 799 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 10th, 2008 06:51 pm |
|
What about when the attorney is not simply playing devil's advocate, but actually says things like 'So, and so, did not kill/steal/commit this crime" It is one thing to shed doubt on the evidence, but if you believe or know your client is guilty is it a lie to say the opposite n court?
Also, what if you know that beinga good lawyer you are likely to win your cases. Or a specific case where you are pretty sure your client is guilty, yet you think if oyou do your best jb, you will get him free. I would have a hard time living with myself if I put a person who was guilty of rape or murder or theft or mugging back on the street.
I also do not like that there can be so many rules as to what is admitted as evidence. I mean, say there was not a warrant, yet they fidn a murder weapon with clear evidence like blood and fingerprints. Or a video taped confession in his VCR but are not allowed to use it. I knw those laws are in place to protect our rights, and well they should be, but sometimes I wish that more specific judgment could be used.
Also, Jesus seemed to be against swearing in oaths. Is this somehow not a problem when in court or swearing into office? How is it not a violation of what he tells us not to do in Matthew 7.
Brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2033 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11th, 2008 01:45 am |
|
brian wrote:It is one thing to shed doubt on the evidence, but if you believe or know your client is guilty is it a lie to say the opposite in court?
Yes, it is both lying and perjury. No moral person, including a lawyer for the defense, would say such a thing in court.
Or a specific case where you are pretty sure your client is guilty, yet you think if you do your best job, you will get him free. I would have a hard time living with myself if I put a person who was guilty of rape or murder or theft or mugging back on the street.
A moral lawyer would not overstate his case. He would stick to the facts. Therefore, one’s “best job” would likely not be all that good morally.
Jesus seemed to be against swearing in oaths. Is this somehow not a problem when in court or swearing into office? How is it not a violation of what he tells us not to do in Matthew 7.
They are different kinds of oath. In court, one’s oath is directed to telling the truth. This is a good, not an evil.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5310 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11th, 2008 01:55 am |
|
A defense attorney's job is not to convince the jury that his client is not guilty unless he truly believes it. He is an officer of the court and if he is caught lying he can be disbarred, prosecuted and jailed.
However, every defendant is entitled to the best possible defense. That is the attorney's job. He looks for holes in the prosecution's case and possible alternate explanations. He looks for circumstances that might justify or excuse his client's behavior in the eyes of the judge or jury. Mostly he casts doubt. All the defense attorney has to do in capital cases is convince one juror that the defendant might not be guilty, and he wins.
In our legal system, it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The defense attorney does not have to prove him not guilty, he only has to convince one juror that there is reasonable doubt. But he cannot lie to do it.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 799 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11th, 2008 05:05 am |
|
They are different kinds of oath. In court, one’s oath is directed to telling the truth. This is a good, not an evil.
What is the difference? I thought Jesus was sort of saying that we should always be telling the truth and not need an oath to ensue anyone we are being honest. That our word should be enough and that we should not need tp swear by anything. But what exactly is the difference?
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5310 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11th, 2008 11:39 am |
|
brian wrote: They are different kinds of oath. In court, one’s oath is directed to telling the truth. This is a good, not an evil.
What is the difference? I thought Jesus was sort of saying that we should always be telling the truth and not need an oath to ensue anyone we are being honest. That our word should be enough and that we should not need tp swear by anything. But what exactly is the difference?
The commandment is to not "bear false witness". This prohibits lying in court, but also things such as malicious gossip. Any time I tell someone something about someone else that I know to be untrue, I have broken this commandment. However, it takes on a more significant meaning in court because of the potential damage to the defendant in the form of punishment, either physical or financial. The cases where a person is wrongfully accused and convicted of a serious crime nearly always involves some type of false witness, either by withholding evidence or by twisting facts to suit circumstances.
That's why its so important that each and every defendant have access to the best possible defense. The defense attorney's job is to find those holes in the prosecution's case that might result in a wrongful conviction. It often results in a guilty person walking free, but that is the price we pay for fairness in our judicial system.
So while lying might be wrong in most cases, bearing false witness does a lot more than hurt someone's feelings. Recently two escaped convicts in New Jersey left a note thanking a guard for giving them the tools to escape. Officials acknowledged that they believed the guard had done nothing wrong, but he felt responsible and killed himself. Prison officials are thus deprived of his statement which could have led to revised procedures to help stop future escapes.
That's a lot more serious than telling a woman her jeans don't make her look fat!
Last edited on Fri Jan 11th, 2008 11:43 am by CajunRick
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2033 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11th, 2008 12:12 pm |
|
Brian, following is what the Navarre Bible Commentary has to say about the taking of oaths:
Matthew 5:33–37. The Law of Moses absolutely prohibited perjury or violation of oaths (Ex 20:7; Num 30:3; Deut 23:22). In Christ’s time, the making of sworn statements was so frequent and the casuistry surrounding them so intricate that the practice was being grossly abused. Some rabbinical documents of the time show that oaths were taken for quite unimportant reasons. Parallel to this abuse of oath-taking there arose no less ridiculous abuses to justify non-fulfilment of oaths. All this meant great disrespect for the name of God. However, we do know from Sacred Scripture that oath-taking is lawful and good in certain circumstances: “If you swear, ‘As the Lord lives’, in truth, in justice, and in uprightness, then nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory” (Jer 4:2).
It should be clear, then, that Jesus is distinguishing when an oath is appropriate, not that all oaths are wrong. Otherwise he would be contradicting divine revelation. What is misleading is that Semitic languages do not have the subtle grammatical tools to express fine distinctions and nuance judgments; such things have to be expressed in black and white, in paradoxical form.
As a result, you will frequently see Jesus speaking in paradoxes and seeming denials to make a point about priorities or unintended consequences. Witness his statements about hating one’s father and mother (Luke 14:26) or to his having come to bring not peace but division (Luke 12:51). The point is not that hatred and enmity are good, but that (in the first instance) there must be priorities in one’s life and (in the second) his good intention will be twisted by man’s own perversity.
The same thing is true in the passage on the swearing of oaths. Jesus emphatically does not mean that oaths are to be excluded. Rather, there is a time and a place for oaths which should not be taken lightly, and the truth must be served in any case.
David
|
|
|
Current time is 12:15 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
