Thesis: If a defense attorney chooses to represent a client and defends their client by any means legally possible during a trial and this does not put the client in a worst off state then they otherwise would have before the defense, then this is morally permissible. If a defense attorney does anything other than attempt to benefit their client, then this is morally wrong.
Part One: I’d like to start by laying the foundation for my thesis. First of all, I’d like to consider the case where the defender is completely unaware of their clients possible guilt. This is the easy case. If I am unaware of my clients guilt upon accepting the offer to represent them, I have no reason to not defend them to the best of my ability. Our system functions …show more content…
Exploiting technicalities seems easy. Our system has rules that are meant to be followed. There should not be anything morally wrong about following the rules. If you are going to argue that pointing out the rules is wrong, it almost makes following the rules seem less important. As for deception, it may come across as cheating in the court setting, however, I am not convinced it is morally wrong. Deception does include spinning the truth to advance the interests of the client, but even though it may seem distasteful, going as far as to say it’s a moral wrong seems extreme. If it’s strengthening your case, and not really hurting anyone in the process I don't see an issue with it. Jurors have the ability to sort through the information provided and decide what to …show more content…
First of all, I want to establish that the sole purpose of a defense attorney is to provide an ethically defensible safeguard for the constitutional values we hold dear. Certain constitutional values such as, “innocent until proven guilty,” right to a fair trial, etc. are all values that we consider essential to our justice system. I want you to imagine a scenario where defense lawyers, or even all lawyers, refuse to represent anyone who they thought to be guilty. In cases, where the guilt was clear, it would be obvious that some individuals would be deprived of the right completely to have the justice system determine the facts. With no defense provided, the prosecution would easily prevail, and the sole judgement of the defense attorney who assumed guilt, rather than the public judgement of the jury and judge, would control our justice system. By this I mean that, refusing to represent anyone who you assume to be guilty, the total system would fail because the prosecution would easily win, since the jury or judge would never hear “both sides” of a case. Consequently the decision to not represent the client (assuming guilt), would automatically establish guilt. This would make it impossible for a fair trial, and would not allow our core principle of “innocent until proven guilty” to continue to be
Part One: I’d like to start by laying the foundation for my thesis. First of all, I’d like to consider the case where the defender is completely unaware of their clients possible guilt. This is the easy case. If I am unaware of my clients guilt upon accepting the offer to represent them, I have no reason to not defend them to the best of my ability. Our system functions …show more content…
Exploiting technicalities seems easy. Our system has rules that are meant to be followed. There should not be anything morally wrong about following the rules. If you are going to argue that pointing out the rules is wrong, it almost makes following the rules seem less important. As for deception, it may come across as cheating in the court setting, however, I am not convinced it is morally wrong. Deception does include spinning the truth to advance the interests of the client, but even though it may seem distasteful, going as far as to say it’s a moral wrong seems extreme. If it’s strengthening your case, and not really hurting anyone in the process I don't see an issue with it. Jurors have the ability to sort through the information provided and decide what to …show more content…
First of all, I want to establish that the sole purpose of a defense attorney is to provide an ethically defensible safeguard for the constitutional values we hold dear. Certain constitutional values such as, “innocent until proven guilty,” right to a fair trial, etc. are all values that we consider essential to our justice system. I want you to imagine a scenario where defense lawyers, or even all lawyers, refuse to represent anyone who they thought to be guilty. In cases, where the guilt was clear, it would be obvious that some individuals would be deprived of the right completely to have the justice system determine the facts. With no defense provided, the prosecution would easily prevail, and the sole judgement of the defense attorney who assumed guilt, rather than the public judgement of the jury and judge, would control our justice system. By this I mean that, refusing to represent anyone who you assume to be guilty, the total system would fail because the prosecution would easily win, since the jury or judge would never hear “both sides” of a case. Consequently the decision to not represent the client (assuming guilt), would automatically establish guilt. This would make it impossible for a fair trial, and would not allow our core principle of “innocent until proven guilty” to continue to be