P
Poisson
Guest
According to the movie, the right thing was to not attack a prosecution witness sufficiently enough and then make your client look like the monster he is.
- Status
E
EENS
Guest
Auberon Quin:
By counsel
By consent
By defense of the ill done
By praise
By partaking
By command
By concealment
By silence
By provocation
You are commiting three of nine, not such a hot percentage there.
Therefore, in order to not be culpable for his sin as well, you must do all in your power to ensure that your client is punished for his offense. (Even if what he did was not a sin in itself, e.g., speeding, it is a sin to break the law; therefore, we are still accessory to that sin.) God bless.
My authority at first without thinking was pure human reason; however, after posting I remembered something I have read many times. The Church teaches there are NINE ways to be accessory to another’s sin. They are as follows:
By counsel
By consent
By defense of the ill done
By praise
By partaking
By command
By concealment
By silence
By provocation
You are commiting three of nine, not such a hot percentage there.
Therefore, in order to not be culpable for his sin as well, you must do all in your power to ensure that your client is punished for his offense. (Even if what he did was not a sin in itself, e.g., speeding, it is a sin to break the law; therefore, we are still accessory to that sin.) God bless.
S
Southernrich
Guest
That is not correct. In every free country, even the “Catholic” countries, defense attorneys are bound by oath to defend their client to the best of their ability.
If an attorney really has a problem with his man’s guilt or innocence, he shouldn’t ask the man about it. Force the prosecution to make their case. BTW, if I examine the prosecution’s case and it’s overwhelming, the case won’t go to trial. I’ll advise the client to accept a plea bargain.
You always want to get the best outcome for the client: having the charges dropped if possible, acquittal if possible, probation if possible, a light sentence if possible.
E
EENS
Guest
I’m not talking about GOVERNMENTAL laws. I cited what the CHURCH says makes you an accessory to another’s sin. If anyone knows someone committed a sin and does any of the nine things I listed in my last post, he is culpable as well.
E
EENS
Guest
I’m not talking about GOVERNMENTAL laws. I cited what the CHURCH says makes you an accessory to another’s sin. If anyone knows someone committed a sin and does any of the nine things I listed in my last post, he is culpable as well.
M
Mandi
Guest
Auberon Quin:
I guess this is why there are so many jokes about lawyers in hell. We even have a restaurant here called “The Honest Lawyer” it’s logo is accompanied by burning flames. - guess that’s the joke!
An oath taken in the name of God is a very serisous thing.
I could never be a lawyer!!
I guess this is why there are so many jokes about lawyers in hell. We even have a restaurant here called “The Honest Lawyer” it’s logo is accompanied by burning flames. - guess that’s the joke!
An oath taken in the name of God is a very serisous thing.
E
Elizabeth_B
Guest
Auberon Quin:
I hope I’m reading more into this than you intend.
In rereading this, I had one more question, is it your intent to “put the witness on trial” and imply that he is at best mistaken, at worst lying, when you know his testimony is accurate and honest?
I hope I’m reading more into this than you intend.
S
Southernrich
Guest
You are wrong. The lawyer isn’t an accessory to the sin in any way.
A lawyer is NOT defending what the man did! His role is to see that the client gets a fair trial in which the State must satisfy the burden of proving to the jury that there is sufficent evidence to convict the client. The criterion is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
A lawyer isn’t concealing the crime. It was already committed and the fellow was already charged with the crime.
A lawyer is not being silent about the commission of the crime. He knows that it’s been committed and it’s surely public knowledge.
S
Southernrich
Guest
Elizabeth B.:
How does the lawyer know that the witness’s testimony is accurate and honest?
E
Elizabeth_B
Guest
If the relevant information matches the defendent’s confession.
A
Auberon_Quin
Guest
I’m going to hell. Ha ha?
I will take no oath in this matter because a lawyer does not testify. My client will take no oath because he is not going to testify, either. He is going to exercise his 5th Amendment right to sit there and say nothing.
The oath I took when I was admitted to the bar prohibits me from lying to the court (I’m not lying) or suborning perjury (my client is not testifying). It also forbids me from betraying my client’s confidences. That oath I take seriously.
EENS, what’s the source for your nine ways? And precisely what sin am I assisting my client in committing?
Liz B., you have precisely divined my intent. I do not mean to malign the witnesses’ characters, but I am going to bring out the facts that they are crack users, who were using at the time, and that such use might in some way impair their ability to make an eyewitness identification of my client was he was, uh, jaywalking.
My oath is to defend my client. That’s what I plan to do.
E
Elizabeth_B
Guest
It may be legal, but it is unethical if you know the testimony is accurate.
F
ferdie
Guest
Wow! Al Pacino, Justice for All! Can you tell a person that before you take his/her case, you don’t want to know if he/she is guilty for conscience reason? Can you drop the case and pass it to another counselor?
I say counsel the person to enter a plea bargain. If he refuses, then you have than your job as a christian. You can start doing your job as a legal counselor and defend him to the best of your ability.
I say counsel the person to enter a plea bargain. If he refuses, then you have than your job as a christian. You can start doing your job as a legal counselor and defend him to the best of your ability.
R
rfk
Guest
You are not accurate in your portrayal of Church teaching.
First of all, remember that much of our legal system derived orginally from Canon law. The principle that a defendent is entitled to be represented by an advocate is firmly a part of Canon law:
If you try to restrict advocates (i.e. defense lawyers) to only work for innocent clients, the absurdity quickly becomes apparent. In a system where each person is innocent until proven guilty, are you going to have all the guilty clients show up at court without a lawyer?
The entire system breaks down. Now there is no competent system of justice, which is an even greater evil. Yet, by your standard, any lawyer who defends a guilty client is guilty of their sins. No way. The Church would not set up an immoral system of Canon law.
I’ll also point out that there are many Catholic lawyers who not only defend clients but also adhere faithfully to Church teaching. There are also law schools at numerous Catholic Universities that have moral theologians on staff. It is quite obvious to me that it is moral to be a defense lawyer or it wouldn’t be taught. You don’t see Catholic Universities teaching abortion.
Bottom line is moral theology is a very complicated field that will not reduce to a few simple platitudes. I’ll trust the judgment of the Church.
J
JCPhoenix
Guest
One thing I haven’t seem mentioned so I thought I would bring it up.
According to Natural Law ethics, which is what Catholic morality is based upon states that a lie is (among other things):
The issue with the question posed to us does not have an easy answer and really it needs to be broken down into parts. Morality although in so many cases is black and white, other issues often come into play.
For an attorney to not defend his/her client in court would not only be a sin against that client, but it would be a sin against God as well. Remember that Jesus preached mercy…and without defense attorneys, as much as I hate to admit it, there would not be very much mercy in our courts. (That is a WHOLE different issue!).
This question alone is a great example of why we as measly humans are not qualified to judge another’s heart and even with the best legal minds in the world operating in perfections to the most minute detail, only God would actually be able to make an accurate judgment.
Just my 2 cents…and as usual, I took a simple idea and went off on a tangent! Thus, although I got my degree in Criminal Justice, I decided to never attend law school!
According to Natural Law ethics, which is what Catholic morality is based upon states that a lie is (among other things):
- witholding information from someone who has a right to that information.
- The State has a right to KNOW that a defendent is or is not guilty. But then again, the reason for a court proceeding and jury trial is exactly for that purpose: to determine definitive guilt or innocence.
- It can also be argued that for an attorney to withold information due to lawyer-client privilege is also a moral obligation, therefore no one is entitled to know the truth in that case.
The issue with the question posed to us does not have an easy answer and really it needs to be broken down into parts. Morality although in so many cases is black and white, other issues often come into play.
For an attorney to not defend his/her client in court would not only be a sin against that client, but it would be a sin against God as well. Remember that Jesus preached mercy…and without defense attorneys, as much as I hate to admit it, there would not be very much mercy in our courts. (That is a WHOLE different issue!).
This question alone is a great example of why we as measly humans are not qualified to judge another’s heart and even with the best legal minds in the world operating in perfections to the most minute detail, only God would actually be able to make an accurate judgment.
Just my 2 cents…and as usual, I took a simple idea and went off on a tangent! Thus, although I got my degree in Criminal Justice, I decided to never attend law school!
J
JCPhoenix
Guest
I just wanted to add another thought, but let me put it in context; it is VERY applicable to this conversation.
I work as a claims investigator, and I deal with many legit and fraudulent claims. Occasionally we deny a claim for misrepresentation and refer it to law enforcement for prosecution.
Now, I would have to say that the main question we consider when we complete our investigation and have to make a decision is this:
Did we PROVE It? Sure, we can know without a doubt that the insured person is guilty of, say, blowing up his car with dynamite. If the case goes to litigation and is presented to a jury, the jury can figure out that the insured person is guilty of blowing his car up. But the question in court really doesn’t come down to guilt or innocence.
The question they must answer is this:
Did they PROVE that Mr. X is guilty?
Of course there are always other questions, but this is the main one…and some of the other questions juries must answer are qualifiers…and those can make all the difference in the decision handed down in court.
I realized I just somewhat contradicted my earlier post, but I felt it was an important distinction, so sorry for any confusion I just created!
I work as a claims investigator, and I deal with many legit and fraudulent claims. Occasionally we deny a claim for misrepresentation and refer it to law enforcement for prosecution.
Now, I would have to say that the main question we consider when we complete our investigation and have to make a decision is this:
Did we PROVE It? Sure, we can know without a doubt that the insured person is guilty of, say, blowing up his car with dynamite. If the case goes to litigation and is presented to a jury, the jury can figure out that the insured person is guilty of blowing his car up. But the question in court really doesn’t come down to guilt or innocence.
The question they must answer is this:
Did they PROVE that Mr. X is guilty?
Of course there are always other questions, but this is the main one…and some of the other questions juries must answer are qualifiers…and those can make all the difference in the decision handed down in court.
I realized I just somewhat contradicted my earlier post, but I felt it was an important distinction, so sorry for any confusion I just created!
O
oldschoolcath23
Guest
Wow, and I was thinking about going to law school once I graduate but now I think you guys have almost talked me out of it!!
I honestly don’t know if I could defend someone who committed a crime, knowing that justice may not be served…Well, back to the drawing board…
I honestly don’t know if I could defend someone who committed a crime, knowing that justice may not be served…Well, back to the drawing board…
E
Emmaus
Guest
Auberon,
Quite an interesting thread. I read it from a background in Police work and Claims Adjusting. I currently do Workers Comp claims for Police and Firefighters. I know more than I ever wanted to and wish I could forget some things. When I retire I am going on tour with Diogenes.
Funny, no one ever wants me on a jury when I am called.
And it is interesting that the plea options are guilty or not guilty and the findings are guilty or not guilty. No innoncents in that system.
I’ll take the Fifth.
Quite an interesting thread. I read it from a background in Police work and Claims Adjusting. I currently do Workers Comp claims for Police and Firefighters. I know more than I ever wanted to and wish I could forget some things. When I retire I am going on tour with Diogenes.
Funny, no one ever wants me on a jury when I am called.
And it is interesting that the plea options are guilty or not guilty and the findings are guilty or not guilty. No innoncents in that system.
I’ll take the Fifth.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Dumb question, but can a Lawyer simply not ask? Take for granted that the client is innocent and unless they volunteer the information, then you can do your best to defend them. After all, if most of the time your client will not testify and your job is to poke holes in the prosecution’s case, then the actual information will not matter. I know that this will not remove possible moral culpability, but at least you can feel a little better.
E
Emmaus
Guest
raphinal,
The fact that an attorney doesn’t ask ( and I think it is common practice not to ask) may not prevent his or her client from telling them anyway. In fact, the client might even take perverse pleasure in knowing his attorney is bound to defend him while being aware of his or her guilt.
When the guilt is pretty much obvious to all parties, then discussing the details is important to the negotiation of a plea bargain if possible.
The fact that an attorney doesn’t ask ( and I think it is common practice not to ask) may not prevent his or her client from telling them anyway. In fact, the client might even take perverse pleasure in knowing his attorney is bound to defend him while being aware of his or her guilt.
When the guilt is pretty much obvious to all parties, then discussing the details is important to the negotiation of a plea bargain if possible.
- Status