Is it wrong for a defense attorney to deliberately try to carry a guilty individual found "not-guilty"?
especially if the defense attorney knows his/her client has committed a vicious crime such as rape or murder.
Answers:
Its unethical yes,but its the job they go to law school and traine dto do.
The D.A is no different except he have absolutely no problem conviciting a man he knows is innocent as long as he seize to do his job. Source(s): Sad and unethical on both sides.
No. The way the system is set up, everyone have a right to a fair trial. That means assistance of counsel. The opinion is that if one side has a vested interest in finding evidence of guilt and the other wishes to find evidence of innocence, and between them they will bring all important evidence to the attention of the jury.
I've talk to a defense attorney, and she said that it is actually rare for her to touch a case where what she does results within the guy getting "let off". Usually the issue is, what EXACTLY is the defendant guilty of, and what penalty should he capture?
unethical and dishonest but they still do it....I refer you to the OJ Simpson trail
It would actually be un-ethical if they didn't try. The lawyer is an supporter for the person's defense, they must attempt to defend the person, regardless of the circumstances.
If the individual truly is so guilty, the evidence will make it obvious to the intermediary / jury.
No. It's his job to represent his clients interest. It's not the attorney's job to determine guilt or innocence.
He have an ethical duty not to ask a witness a question at trial if he knows the witness will not tell the truth.
In the legally recognized system, every one has a job. The accuse are entitled to a determined defense. That atty is charged with any and all permitted means to have his client found not guilty.
Anything else, and this might as ably be Iran.
It is not strictly 'unethical' for a defense attorney to defend a person they know is guilty.
A personality can be guilty, but the means with which the prosecution is attempting to prove them guilty may enjoy been obtained illegitimately or may violate the defendant's civil rights in some fashion. While it may appear expedient to simply overlook that on the basis of the fact that the defendant is exactly guilty, the problem would be that this would set a precedent for future actions - and eventually you would be face with a factually *innocent* defendant trying to preserve themselves against 'evidence' that was illegally obtain or represented a violation of the defendant's civil rights.
The defense attorney's job is to represent their client as best as they are competent. In doing so, they are representing the *criminal justice system* as well. None of us are not detrimental unless ALL of us are safe. That is the basis of the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', and have defense attorneys selectively decide whether or not to defend their clients base upon their belief of innocence or guilt would completely undermine that system.
If a private defense attorney truly cannot defend someone that they believe is guilty, they are free to consent to the client know that in advance and resolve which cases they will take and which cases they will not. Public defenders, however, do not enjoy this luxury.
My guess is that they don't ask about guilt or innocence. Might be better that way to not know.
Related Questions:
Defense attorney question!?
Where can i find a obedient criminal defense advocate for terrifically little money or free?
Who is the best defense attorney surrounded by tarrant county texas, as far as acquire dismissals ?
DEFENSE ATTORNEY OR PROSECUTOR?
If you be a advocate, would you be a prosecuting or defense laywer?
Answers:
Its unethical yes,but its the job they go to law school and traine dto do.
The D.A is no different except he have absolutely no problem conviciting a man he knows is innocent as long as he seize to do his job. Source(s): Sad and unethical on both sides.
No. The way the system is set up, everyone have a right to a fair trial. That means assistance of counsel. The opinion is that if one side has a vested interest in finding evidence of guilt and the other wishes to find evidence of innocence, and between them they will bring all important evidence to the attention of the jury.
I've talk to a defense attorney, and she said that it is actually rare for her to touch a case where what she does results within the guy getting "let off". Usually the issue is, what EXACTLY is the defendant guilty of, and what penalty should he capture?
unethical and dishonest but they still do it....I refer you to the OJ Simpson trail
It would actually be un-ethical if they didn't try. The lawyer is an supporter for the person's defense, they must attempt to defend the person, regardless of the circumstances.
If the individual truly is so guilty, the evidence will make it obvious to the intermediary / jury.
No. It's his job to represent his clients interest. It's not the attorney's job to determine guilt or innocence.
He have an ethical duty not to ask a witness a question at trial if he knows the witness will not tell the truth.
In the legally recognized system, every one has a job. The accuse are entitled to a determined defense. That atty is charged with any and all permitted means to have his client found not guilty.
Anything else, and this might as ably be Iran.
It is not strictly 'unethical' for a defense attorney to defend a person they know is guilty.
A personality can be guilty, but the means with which the prosecution is attempting to prove them guilty may enjoy been obtained illegitimately or may violate the defendant's civil rights in some fashion. While it may appear expedient to simply overlook that on the basis of the fact that the defendant is exactly guilty, the problem would be that this would set a precedent for future actions - and eventually you would be face with a factually *innocent* defendant trying to preserve themselves against 'evidence' that was illegally obtain or represented a violation of the defendant's civil rights.
The defense attorney's job is to represent their client as best as they are competent. In doing so, they are representing the *criminal justice system* as well. None of us are not detrimental unless ALL of us are safe. That is the basis of the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', and have defense attorneys selectively decide whether or not to defend their clients base upon their belief of innocence or guilt would completely undermine that system.
If a private defense attorney truly cannot defend someone that they believe is guilty, they are free to consent to the client know that in advance and resolve which cases they will take and which cases they will not. Public defenders, however, do not enjoy this luxury.
My guess is that they don't ask about guilt or innocence. Might be better that way to not know.
Related Questions: