Topic: FAO: Becky (or anyone who knows about law stuff)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx started this discussion 12 years ago #38,363
I'm curious about ethics and morality for lawyers. What if a lawyer is defending, say, a horrible murderer who is obviously guilty? Or prosecuting somebody who is clearly innocent? Are they allowed to step out if they really feel they can't handle it, or are lawyers all told to "suck it up"? Are problems of conscience common in this profession, or people who would care about that weeded out before they become lawyers?Thanks, thanks.
dw !jdTkvovFCQ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #512,986
Why does that man have a cigar for a finger?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #512,987
dw !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #512,989
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #512,992
@previous (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
I don't know who that is, but the man behind is, in fact, an enforcer working for Junior but whom has been hired by Roman. Presumably, this picture takes place just before Roman robs the dust shop where he first encounters Ruby.
I don't know who that is, but the man behind is, in fact, an enforcer working for Junior but whom has been hired by Roman. Presumably, this picture takes place just before Roman robs the dust shop where he first encounters Ruby.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 30 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #512,995
@OP
Becky has no conscience
Becky has no conscience
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 16 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #512,998
dw !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 12 years ago, 32 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #513,002
squeegee joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #513,006
learn enough loopholes and legal shennanigans and it becomes more about what you can get away with than what you should.
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #513,023
@OP
> I'm curious about ethics and morality for lawyers. What if a lawyer is defending, say, a horrible murderer who is obviously guilty?
Most people who do criminal defense have accepted that they will often defend ridiculously guilty people. A few things that make that "okay" to them:
1. The goal for the lawyer is not necessarily to get an acquittal at trial. You take a case on not knowing how far it will go. Something like 95-98% of criminal cases end in plea deals. Often, "success" for a criminal defense lawyer is defined as negotiating the best possible deal. The preliminary steps of denying the client's guilt are done alongside privately negotiating with the prosecutors for a better deal. If you think the prosecutor is overplaying their hand, or the client doesn't want to plea, then you proceed. It's sort of a crapshoot whether you'll end up at trial actually claiming innocence. 99% of the criminal defense lawyer's job is done in these preliminary stages that don't involve publicly disclaiming guilt.
2. There's something to the idea of keeping the system, including prosecutors, honest. In the last half century, the rights of the accused have become much stronger - but they are only meaningful as long as someone is there to hold them to it. I know people who do death-penalty challenges based on the slightest procedural errors. They're not necessarily thinking about the case at hand, whether THIS guy is guilty, but more, is this the kind of police work that should be encouraged? Should prosecutors be allowed to withhold this kind of evidence? It's a bigger picture of how the justice system should function.
3. Guilty clients are still people. Human beings, with lives before and after whatever wrong they did. They deserve strong advocacy.
> Or prosecuting somebody who is clearly innocent?
I have a much worse opinion of prosecutors than I do of defense lawyers. Someone else could maybe answer this question, but I think they are generally shitheads who withhold evidence, cover up for police, and largely consider only their political careers. I'm pretty much as bad as Matt here.
> Are they allowed to step out if they really feel they can't handle it, or are lawyers all told to "suck it up"?
If you have a moral problem, or any other problem, representing someone, the ethical rules require you to withdraw from the case. You might need court permission to do that, but if you tell them you can no longer represent a client in good conscience, the judge will let you off the case.
> Are problems of conscience common in this profession, or people who would care about that weeded out before they become lawyers?
I think people with serious ethical problems are overrepresented among lawyers. I also think there are a lot of good ones, who care. Their care may not always be for the truth of the individual case before them, but they have some abiding philosophy of justice that makes sense.
> I'm curious about ethics and morality for lawyers. What if a lawyer is defending, say, a horrible murderer who is obviously guilty?
Most people who do criminal defense have accepted that they will often defend ridiculously guilty people. A few things that make that "okay" to them:
1. The goal for the lawyer is not necessarily to get an acquittal at trial. You take a case on not knowing how far it will go. Something like 95-98% of criminal cases end in plea deals. Often, "success" for a criminal defense lawyer is defined as negotiating the best possible deal. The preliminary steps of denying the client's guilt are done alongside privately negotiating with the prosecutors for a better deal. If you think the prosecutor is overplaying their hand, or the client doesn't want to plea, then you proceed. It's sort of a crapshoot whether you'll end up at trial actually claiming innocence. 99% of the criminal defense lawyer's job is done in these preliminary stages that don't involve publicly disclaiming guilt.
2. There's something to the idea of keeping the system, including prosecutors, honest. In the last half century, the rights of the accused have become much stronger - but they are only meaningful as long as someone is there to hold them to it. I know people who do death-penalty challenges based on the slightest procedural errors. They're not necessarily thinking about the case at hand, whether THIS guy is guilty, but more, is this the kind of police work that should be encouraged? Should prosecutors be allowed to withhold this kind of evidence? It's a bigger picture of how the justice system should function.
3. Guilty clients are still people. Human beings, with lives before and after whatever wrong they did. They deserve strong advocacy.
> Or prosecuting somebody who is clearly innocent?
I have a much worse opinion of prosecutors than I do of defense lawyers. Someone else could maybe answer this question, but I think they are generally shitheads who withhold evidence, cover up for police, and largely consider only their political careers. I'm pretty much as bad as Matt here.
> Are they allowed to step out if they really feel they can't handle it, or are lawyers all told to "suck it up"?
If you have a moral problem, or any other problem, representing someone, the ethical rules require you to withdraw from the case. You might need court permission to do that, but if you tell them you can no longer represent a client in good conscience, the judge will let you off the case.
> Are problems of conscience common in this profession, or people who would care about that weeded out before they become lawyers?
I think people with serious ethical problems are overrepresented among lawyers. I also think there are a lot of good ones, who care. Their care may not always be for the truth of the individual case before them, but they have some abiding philosophy of justice that makes sense.
Anonymous D replied with this 12 years ago, 47 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #513,033
Lawyers are the profession with the highest rate of psychopaths after CEOs
