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

[Anathema]

Thus topic has been something that I've wondered for years..... How do those individuals who work in the Legal System, on either side, so easily ignore basic morality to do their job?

How does the Prosecutor willingly prosecute a person they know to be not guilty? How does the Defense Attorney provide the voracious defense of a person they know to be Guilty? How does a Judge preside over a trial he knows will lead to the wrong outcome?

I've only had one run - in with the Legal System, as a juror almost 10 years ago. In that 2 days I lost all respect for the system and the people in it.

How the hell do they do it?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Faith and oaths.

Defense attorneys fill a necessary role in justice dating back millenia. Even the Bible makes trials and prosecution and defense mandatory. Personal feelings must be set aside in order to do your job. If you can't do that you shouldn't be going to law school in the first place. Not like anyone accidentally becomes a lawyer.

In the case of a prosector, if they know someone's innocent, I mean via facts and evidence, not hunches or personal opinions they're duty-bound and required by law to make that information public. If they go foward with a prosecution knowing the defendant is innocent they're guilty of a crime.

Judges always have an opinion, but again they're professionals and can set that aside in order to do their job. In the cases involving incorrect jury verdicts, judges have the power to override the jury's verdict if they came to it illegally. Like factoring in evidence the judge instructed them to ignore and the like.

US justice isn't anything close to perfect, but it's better than my idea which is shoot all the bad guys.

 

[Anathema]

Delta, in other words they do it by ignoring or simply not having morals to begin with. That's pretty much the answer I expected.

You're idea is nicer than mine. My idea is shoot them all and let the Gods sort them out.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Why are you posting, anyway? Shouldn't you be at Cooper's Lake for Pennsic War 43?

 

[DGS49]

An ethical criminal defense lawyer recognizes that IT IS NOT UP TO HIM to judge whether his client is guilty. That is what trials, judges and juries are for.

Consequently, they take pains NOT to try to determine the guilt or innocence of their client, but rather concern themselves with making the best case possible for their client, and forcing the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. According to the system we have, if the state cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then the accused goes free. This is why there are no "Innocent" verdicts, but only "Not [proven] Guilty" verdicts.

They may not knowingly permit their client to perjure himself. If the client says he wants to get up on the stand and lie his ass off, he cannot allow that to happen. If he does so, he can be censured or even disbarred. In fact, he must ask the judge to excuse him as the defendant's attorney - without saying why.

Consider: More than 90% of criminal cases are resolved by a guilty plea. More than 95% of crimes that are "solved" are done so by guilty plea. Most of a defense lawyer's job is getting the best deal possible for an army of defendants who - everyone knows - did exactly what they were accused of doing.

It is a RARE case when you are actually defending someone who is factually innocent. Most lawyers just assume the guy who walked through their door has done what he's accused of, and take it from there. There is nothing "immoral" in getting an acquittal for someone who was actually guilty. The criminal justice system is not in the "revenge" business; it's in the business of trying to protect the public and deter harmful behavior. Ultimate justice is God's job.

 

[Anathema]

An ethical criminal defense lawyer recognizes that IT IS NOT UP TO HIM to judge whether his client is guilty. That is what trials, judges and juries are for.

In other words a criminal defense attorney must be either ethically ignorant or a mental midget, one way or the other. That's the only way that I can see a supposedly "educated" individual not looking at most of their clients and knowing that they are GUILTY.

Consequently, they take pains NOT to try to determine the guilt or innocence of their client, but rather concern themselves with making the best case possible for their client, and forcing the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. According to the system we have, if the state cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then the accused goes free. This is why there are no "Innocent" verdicts, but only "Not [proven] Guilty" verdicts.

In other words, they specialize in wasting our time and tax dollars trying to get their client off for whatever he/she did.

That right there is the crux of why I have ZERO respect for the system. We waste resources trying to acquit the guilty rather than spending that time determining the best way to:

a. Punish the criminal
b. Use them as an example to others of what happens when you can't follow the rules.

They may not knowingly permit their client to perjure himself. If the client says he wants to get up on the stand and lie his ass off, he cannot allow that to happen. If he does so, he can be censured or even disbarred. In fact, he must ask the judge to excuse him as the defendant's attorney - without saying why.

Instead of doing the right thing, which would be "Excuse me your honor, but my client is a lying sack of shit who isn't even worthy of the oxygen he's currently breathing."

Consider: More than 90% of criminal cases are resolved by a guilty plea. More than 95% of crimes that are "solved" are done so by guilty plea. Most of a defense lawyer's job is getting the best deal possible for an army of defendants who - everyone knows - did exactly what they were accused of doing.

Which brings me to the other problem with the system.... If all of these people are pleading guilty, how the fuck do we still have so many criminals on the street? Let's get back to JUSTICE as the basis for the system. You know.... An Eye for an Eye.

It is a RARE case when you are actually defending someone who is factually innocent. Most lawyers just assume the guy who walked through their door has done what he's accused of, and take it from there. There is nothing "immoral" in getting an acquittal for someone who was actually guilty. The criminal justice system is not in the "revenge" business; it's in the business of trying to protect the public and deter harmful behavior. Ultimate justice is God's job.

There is absolutely and most definitely MANY THINGS immoral about defending someone they know or believe to be guilty.

I know the LEGAL system isn't in the business of revenge. That's part of why I have no respect for it.

 

[whitehall]

If a prosecutor "knows" a person to be innocent he would be breaking the law by not revealing his knowledge to the defense. Defense lawyers operate under a different set of rules. Most defense attorneys feel it's their moral duty to make sure their client gets a fair trial regardless of their suspicions about his guilt or innocence.

 

[DGS49]

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?

 

[martybegan]

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?

If one bases ones morality on the legal system itself, then a defense attorney who is vigorous in making the prosecution make its case is acting morally. Christians are supposed to "render unto Ceasar" those items that are secular in nature, and thus have an out for their own morality.

The system cannot work without defense attorneys, thus someone interested in justice may have to "take one for the team' to assure even the most evil guilty scumbags get a fair trial.

 

[richstacy]

Thus topic has been something that I've wondered for years..... How do those individuals who work in the Legal System, on either side, so easily ignore basic morality to do their job?

How does the Prosecutor willingly prosecute a person they know to be not guilty? How does the Defense Attorney provide the voracious defense of a person they know to be Guilty? How does a Judge preside over a trial he knows will lead to the wrong outcome?

I've only had one run - in with the Legal System, as a juror almost 10 years ago. In that 2 days I lost all respect for the system and the people in it.

How the hell do they do it?

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.

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.

 

[richstacy]

An ethical criminal defense lawyer recognizes that IT IS NOT UP TO HIM to judge whether his client is guilty. That is what trials, judges and juries are for.

In other words a criminal defense attorney must be either ethically ignorant or a mental midget, one way or the other. That's the only way that I can see a supposedly "educated" individual not looking at most of their clients and knowing that they are GUILTY.

Consequently, they take pains NOT to try to determine the guilt or innocence of their client, but rather concern themselves with making the best case possible for their client, and forcing the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. According to the system we have, if the state cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then the accused goes free. This is why there are no "Innocent" verdicts, but only "Not [proven] Guilty" verdicts.

In other words, they specialize in wasting our time and tax dollars trying to get their client off for whatever he/she did.

That right there is the crux of why I have ZERO respect for the system. We waste resources trying to acquit the guilty rather than spending that time determining the best way to:

a. Punish the criminal
b. Use them as an example to others of what happens when you can't follow the rules.



Instead of doing the right thing, which would be "Excuse me your honor, but my client is a lying sack of shit who isn't even worthy of the oxygen he's currently breathing."

Consider: More than 90% of criminal cases are resolved by a guilty plea. More than 95% of crimes that are "solved" are done so by guilty plea. Most of a defense lawyer's job is getting the best deal possible for an army of defendants who - everyone knows - did exactly what they were accused of doing.

Which brings me to the other problem with the system.... If all of these people are pleading guilty, how the fuck do we still have so many criminals on the street? Let's get back to JUSTICE as the basis for the system. You know.... An Eye for an Eye.

It is a RARE case when you are actually defending someone who is factually innocent. Most lawyers just assume the guy who walked through their door has done what he's accused of, and take it from there. There is nothing "immoral" in getting an acquittal for someone who was actually guilty. The criminal justice system is not in the "revenge" business; it's in the business of trying to protect the public and deter harmful behavior. Ultimate justice is God's job.

There is absolutely and most definitely MANY THINGS immoral about defending someone they know or believe to be guilty.

I know the LEGAL system isn't in the business of revenge. That's part of why I have no respect for it.

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.

 

[Jarlaxle]

He thinks he would, yes.

In other news, he is batshit insane.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Delta, in other words they do it by ignoring or simply not having morals to begin with. That's pretty much the answer I expected.

You're idea is nicer than mine. My idea is shoot them all and let the Gods sort them out.

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.

-Jeremiah

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Thus topic has been something that I've wondered for years..... How do those individuals who work in the Legal System, on either side, so easily ignore basic morality to do their job?

How does the Prosecutor willingly prosecute a person they know to be not guilty? How does the Defense Attorney provide the voracious defense of a person they know to be Guilty? How does a Judge preside over a trial he knows will lead to the wrong outcome?

I've only had one run - in with the Legal System, as a juror almost 10 years ago. In that 2 days I lost all respect for the system and the people in it.

How the hell do they do it?

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.

-Jeremiah

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Thus topic has been something that I've wondered for years..... How do those individuals who work in the Legal System, on either side, so easily ignore basic morality to do their job?

How does the Prosecutor willingly prosecute a person they know to be not guilty? How does the Defense Attorney provide the voracious defense of a person they know to be Guilty? How does a Judge preside over a trial he knows will lead to the wrong outcome?

I've only had one run - in with the Legal System, as a juror almost 10 years ago. In that 2 days I lost all respect for the system and the people in it.

How the hell do they do it?

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.

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.

Innocent people are accused all the time. Do not be surprised at the lengths the wicked will go to in order to acccuse the righteous. It has been documented throughout history. Look what they did to Jesus.

- Jeremiah

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Thus topic has been something that I've wondered for years..... How do those individuals who work in the Legal System, on either side, so easily ignore basic morality to do their job?

How does the Prosecutor willingly prosecute a person they know to be not guilty? How does the Defense Attorney provide the voracious defense of a person they know to be Guilty? How does a Judge preside over a trial he knows will lead to the wrong outcome?

I've only had one run - in with the Legal System, as a juror almost 10 years ago. In that 2 days I lost all respect for the system and the people in it.

How the hell do they do it?

Can you name the one thing that is more important and more valuable than all the self righteous indignation you can muster up?

Our constitution.

Every single court case faces that fact and reacts accordingly.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Thus topic has been something that I've wondered for years..... How do those individuals who work in the Legal System, on either side, so easily ignore basic morality to do their job?

How does the Prosecutor willingly prosecute a person they know to be not guilty? How does the Defense Attorney provide the voracious defense of a person they know to be Guilty? How does a Judge preside over a trial he knows will lead to the wrong outcome?

I've only had one run - in with the Legal System, as a juror almost 10 years ago. In that 2 days I lost all respect for the system and the people in it.

How the hell do they do it?

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.

-Jeremiah

Nope.

They are accountable to our justice system. While not even close to perfect, its the best in the world. And it answers very directly to our constitution.

The ignorance of our system is just stunning. As is the total lack of respect for and knowledge of our constitution.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If a prosecutor "knows" a person to be innocent he would be breaking the law by not revealing his knowledge to the defense. Defense lawyers operate under a different set of rules. Most defense attorneys feel it's their moral duty to make sure their client gets a fair trial regardless of their suspicions about his guilt or innocence.

"Morals" never ever enter into it.

And that's the way its supposed to be.

Morality is subjective. Our constitution is not.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Thus topic has been something that I've wondered for years..... How do those individuals who work in the Legal System, on either side, so easily ignore basic morality to do their job?

How does the Prosecutor willingly prosecute a person they know to be not guilty? How does the Defense Attorney provide the voracious defense of a person they know to be Guilty? How does a Judge preside over a trial he knows will lead to the wrong outcome?

I've only had one run - in with the Legal System, as a juror almost 10 years ago. In that 2 days I lost all respect for the system and the people in it.

How the hell do they do it?

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.

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.

Innocent people are accused all the time. Do not be surprised at the lengths the wicked will go to in order to acccuse the righteous. It has been documented throughout history. Look what they did to Jesus.

- Jeremiah

Jesus?

WTF?

As far as I know, Jesus was not tried under the contraints of the US Constitution.

 

[Anathema]

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.