Education

You represent a person and give him/her a legal advice, not only defend. If your client confesses a crime to you, plus all the evidence are against him/her, you can (must in some cases) advise your client to plea guilty. If your client is a first time offender and shows remorse for his actions he/she may get a better sentence than he/she would if you defend him/her as "not guilty".

As for the debate part. I had a professor, that loved to have debates and he devided our class in two groups and assigned us an opinion kinda like yours did. The point of those debates was to develope our debate skills. The truth in these debates was irelevant as some of the topics were pretty radical such as 'Do people need to breathe.'

Master Joined: 09 Jun 2009 Posts: 1410

Reep, I'm not a lawyer but lawyers are governed by laws and the ethics of whatever organization that oversees them. Because they duty bound to give their client the best defense possible and having knowledge that their client is guilty of the charge would interfere with that duty, I highly doubt if most lawyers even ask their clients if they're guilty. I know in some jurisdictions lawyers must report knowledge of their client's guilt to the court.

It's just not as black and white as you're seeing it because by law everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; not on the accused to prove they are innocent.
_________________
Roqoo Depot co-founder.

I'm not saying I have a better solution than our current law system, I'm just lamenting about injustice in general. If you know someone is guilty of a crime, I don't care what job you have, it's wrong to lie in their favour for money. If I was falsely accused of murder and I couldn't afford a good lawyer, while the prosecution was a billionaire and could hire the best lawyer in the country, too bad for me. Again, I'm not saying that there's a better solution, I just wish more people would have common sense.
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.

Master Joined: 29 Feb 2008 Posts: 745 Location: Denver

Master Joined: 29 Feb 2008 Posts: 745 Location: Denver

That is all. Wink

No, not really.

Master Joined: 09 Jun 2009 Posts: 1410

Idk what the setup is in Canada, but in the U.S. criminal prosecution is brought by the state (or federal) government; not an individual. So it wouldn't matter how personally wealthy the prosecutor is because he doesn't use his money to prosecute.

In a civil case the client pays; not the lawyers.

Also lying in court is called perjury and the courts take it very seriously. You get caught, you go to jail for it.

Master Joined: 22 Dec 2010 Posts: 1796 Location: Carcosa

The legal system is substantially different than is portrayed in popular culture, and sadly, IMO, there are issues with the American legal system that I think deserve mention that are brushed aside for the popular depiction of lawyers and so forth when people are taking shots at it.

What I find interesting in this particular discussion is that I think overzealous prosecutors are more the issue in the adversarial system than defense attorneys. It is innocent until proven guilty, yet the base assumption in this discussion seems to be that the accused is already guilty by default. Prosecutors have a vested interest in finding the truth -- not winning -- and yet the adversarial system has created a culture of prosecutors desiring to win even if the defendant is innocent.

Master Joined: 29 Feb 2008 Posts: 745 Location: Denver

It's true that an individuals point of view might obscure the truth in their sight, but that doesn't mean that truth doesn't exist. There are three sides to every argument: two biased subjective views and the truth.
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.

I'd argue that seeking out a course of action isn't a seeking out of the truth, but rather an attempt to find a solution that's best. That's not necessarily the truth. Saying 'this solution is best' could be the truth, or not (when compared to one thing or another), and a political debate over that statement would be the seeking out of the truth, but finding out which is the best solution isn't itself finding out the truth.

Also, I feel that the words 'fact' and 'truth' are not universally interchangeable. As my girl once said, people's opinions are their truth, but it may not be factual. And, when I brought up this subject with her just now, she came up with this, and I'm in agreement:

All wants are needs, but not all needs are wants. (This from her social studies class, which she altered into the below)
All facts are truths, but not all truths are facts.
Truth is, I guess, a subset of fact.
_________________
I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it. These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.

Page 3 of 4		All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next