Are Criminal Lawyers Ethical?
Question:
Why you ask, well I think there is alot of innocent people who are incarcerated.So criminal lawyers would help these inmates get a lesser term or even get them out!
What do you think?
Answer:
This is basically just a philosophical debate, but I'll put in my two cents. I know criminal defense attorneys who are very ethical, moral people. They believe in innocent until proven guilty, which is the foundational principal of our criminal justice system. Of course, most criminal defendants are convicted (and by implication, most people charged are guilty). But that does not change the fact that we would want everyone to have a quality defense, because any right we would want for ourselves should be guaranteed to everyone.
John Adams (the second President) was a lawyer, and he helped write the Declaration of Independence. Very cool guy, besides being a Father of Our Country. Right before the Revolution, he volunteered to represent the British soldiers who were charged in the killings in the Boston Massacre and other lawyers didn't want to represent them(look it up if you don't remember Revolutionary War history). Even though he lost, he has been quoted as saying that it's the case he was the proudest of taking. Now that's an ethical stand: one of the Founding Fathers as the criminal defense attorney for the very British troops who were killing the citizens of Boston at the start of the Revolutionary War, because he knew they deserved a fair trial.
obviously if they are criminals, they aren't ethical.
The real question is are any lawyers not criminals?
Because of the presumption of innocence in criminal trials, a defendant is entitled to make the prosecution prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. A defense (not a criminal) lawyer helps the defendant do that.
your perception is your reality. that is a chicken and the egg question...
but there are criminal lawyers cuz there is honor in the dollar... thanks american society.
If you're a pre-law student, you should also know that "ethical" is an incredibly vague term. Given the plethora of ethical systems out there (from classic deontology, to utilitarianism, to hedonism, to feminist ethical systems), there are a number of ways in which a criminal lawyer can be called ethical and a number of other ways in which they can be called not ethical.
I appreciate that is not much of an answer, so let me offer one perspective:
Much of what lawyers do can be viewed as wrong to a certain extent, but the idea behind the justice system is that by having 2 lawyers (1 prosecution, 1 defense) fight each tooth and nail, the end result is justice. So, if you're a consequentialist (ends justify the means), then you might say that criminal lawyers are highly ethical.
Ethics in the law means representing your client as vigorously as possible. Every person has a right to be represented competently. In fact, that is a constitutional right. It is a criminal defendant's ethical duty to represent every one of it's clients competently and aggressively. You need to understand, and should understand as a pre-law student, that the role of an attorney is that of a counselor and representative. The attorney does not judge a client's position. It advocates a client's position. It does not follow from that that the attorney, in her or his personal life, agrees with the morals and values of those that they represent. An attorney that does not adequately represent its criminal client is considered unethical and will be disbarred from practicing the law.
My niece is an attorney and I asked her why would you defend a criminal on death row that you think is guilty.She explained to me that you are defending their constitutional rights.
It is a defense attorney's obligation to provide the best defense possible to it's client. Justice can't be served unless both sides get a chance to explain their testimony. I had to laugh about the Mousaoulli trial (sorry can't spell). The guy was wanting to testify for the prosecution, because he wants the death penalty, so he can be a martyr. The defense objected, but he still got to testify. The defense really didn't have much to work with, but they had an obligation to work on his side. Don't get me wrong, I think what that guy did changed our history for the worse and he could have helped prevent it, but I just felt kind of bad for those defense attorneys.
More Related Questions & Answers...