How Does one Ignore their Morals while Working in the Legal System?

[Anathema]

You can't be serious Anathema. Would you prefer a system where the defendant is simply presumed to be guilty and sent straight away to prison? That's basically your choice here. And that's the system that prevails in almost every totalitarian country in the world, just as it did in Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR. What makes you think that your prejudgment of any case viewed through YOUR moral lens is the correct one? Stop assuming things that are not true and think about it. It is the superiority of our system of laws, and not of men, that sets us apart.

I'm as serious as a heart attack in the middle of the Sahara Desert.

I prefer a system where JUSTICE is the goal, not LEGALITY. A system where the goal is to ensure that the guilty are convicted and properly punished 100% of the time. If that means criminals get the short end of the stick, I have no problem with it. Gee, you didn't get read your rights (something I don't believe we should be doing anyway) in the proper dialect of your "native" Spanish, even though you've lived in the US your entire life.... TOO DAMN BAD. The police clerk accidenally reversed the numbers in the address on the serach warrant for your house.... TOO DAMN BAD. The cops "tricked" you into admitting your guilt.... TOO DAMN BAD. Not enough of your fellow drug-using, gang-banging, slum-living folks on the jury.... TOO DAMN BAD.

 

[Anathema]

No. That is not how it works. You continue to pray that justice will be done and you wait upon God to avenge you of your enemies. He will do it.

Sorry, but I've never seen a whole lot of Justice handed down by your God. If ever necessary, I will take things into my own hands, thank you very much.

They believe no one sees them and what they are up to. They believe they are accountable to no one but themselves. But they are wrong on both accounts. Their day is coming. It is surely coming, Anethema.

It better be. It better be soon, and it better be on THIS SIDE of Eternity.

 

[richstacy]

You are truly one confused guy Anathema.
No prosecutor prosecutes someone he knows to be innocent. That's absurd to say nothing of unethical and grounds for disbarment.

I sat on a jury 10 years ago where so far as I'm concerned a DA did exactly that. The crimial was charged with DUI and Reckless Driving in 2 separate incidents over a course of half an hour in different parts of the same town. The officer arrested him for the DUI and then after the fact the Reckless Driving charge got "tacked on" when he VAGUELY fit the description of the suspect in a Reckless Driving incident reported by a private citizen. We acquitted him of the Reckless charge as there was no evidence and convicted on the DUI. Unfortunately it took 2 days of my time to get this done because (as is the case most often) the vast majority of members of the Jury were people whose only reason for being there was essentially that they were too stupid to get out of Jury duty. I lost all faith in the system that day and have ensured that I do not ever get picked for another jury.

{QUOTE=richstacy;9616503] As for defense lawyers it is their duty to provide a vigorous defense. Why? because the defendant is entitled to that under the Constitution -- regardless of whether you or I consider him or her to be guilty. It's not our job to determine guilt or innocence, that's the job of a properly instructed jury which has heard all the relevant admissible facts. I'm amazed that you are confused over this.

When the defendent is actually innocent, I have no problem with that. However, when the dedenant is OBVIOUSLY guilty, all the defense attorney is doing is wasting EVERYONE'S time, and the government's money.

I highly doubt there's been a decent jury in this country in the last 50 years. After my personal experiences I am totally in favor of changing the way we select juries.

You don't like our system. Have you chosen the totalitarian hell hole where you think you would be better off yet? The prosecution and the defense both have a sense of duty and a job to do under the Constitution -- they almost universally do their duty with honor and integrity. You, on the other hand, appear to be nothing but a judgmental and crotchety old curmudgeon who thinks only of himself and his narrow opinions. I certainly agree with you on one thing: you should NEVER be allowed to sit on a jury anywhere again. That honor should be reserved for responsible citizens.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill: the American justice system is just terrible -- until you compare it to any other.

 

[whitehall]

Whitehall, I think you are being too kind. Defense attorneys are not particularly interested in getting a "fair trial" for their clients. They are interested in winning the case. And if that means discrediting a truthful witness or impeaching valid evidence or having reliable inculpatory evidence tossed because of real or imagined "constitutional" violations, then so be it.

The Dream Team never wanted a "fair trial" for OJ. They were willing to do anything and everything to get him off...and they succeeded.

The question before the board is, Is this a moral profession? Or do you have to be amoral to even get involved?

Not an entirely fatuous question, although as I have indicated above, there are arguments one could make that it is an honorable calling, if done properly and ethically.

But so is selling used cars, eh?

How credible can a witness be if the witness is discredited? How valid can evidence be if it is "impeached"? Defense attorneys aren't the enemy, the politicians who furnish loopholes in the law, ill prepared prosecutors and the judges who create law from the bench are.

 

[whitehall]

The point is the concept of morality. It is completely immoral and illegal for a prosecutor to try a defendant whom he knows to be innocent but how can you question the morality of the defense which has a Constitutional responsibility to insure that the client gets a fair trial? The judge rules on procedure and evidence and if the prosecution does a inept job as they did in the O.J. case you can't blame the defense.

 

[Anathema]

You don't like our system. Have you chosen the totalitarian hell hole where you think you would be better off yet? The prosecution and the defense both have a sense of duty and a job to do under the Constitution -- they almost universally do their duty with honor and integrity. You, on the other hand, appear to be nothing but a judgmental and crotchety old curmudgeon who thinks only of himself and his narrow opinions. I certainly agree with you on one thing: you should NEVER be allowed to sit on a jury anywhere again. That honor should be reserved for responsible citizens.

In answer to your first question..... IRAN looks good.

Trust me, I'll allow myself to be in contempt before I ever sit on another jury. Just as I would never allow myself to be tried by a jury in this country if I were ever arrested for anything.

 

[Anathema]

The point is the concept of morality. It is completely immoral and illegal for a prosecutor to try a defendant whom he knows to be innocent but how can you question the morality of the defense which has a Constitutional responsibility to insure that the client gets a fair trial? The judge rules on procedure and evidence and if the prosecution does a inept job as they did in the O.J. case you can't blame the defense.

"To ensure that the client gets a fair trial." I don't seen anything in there about defending the client or attempting to counteract the prosecution. In a case where the defense attorney knows his client is guilty his duty is simply to ensure that the trial goes off in accordance with the standards and procedures of the court. NOTHING MORE.