The position of an attorney is one of the most misunderstood in terms of a criminal lawyer. There are many ethical issues involved in criminal defense work, and a criminal lawyer is often subject to swear criticisms when he defends an accused or guilty client. The acquisition becomes even more intense when the lawyer gets successful in setting the accused free by defending him. Read about such things.
The first thing that comes into mind is educating people about the rights of the Accused to avoid such criticism, but this dilemma has no solution as a guilty person will always remain guilty in people's eyes, and criticism becomes quite normal for a criminal lawyer. Many questions are raised on a lawyer's integrity when he defends the accused of his crimes.
The actual state of the lawyer is to be determined under two points of view, one as moral and the other as legal. This article intends to make clear the position and duties of a lawyer in respect of defense when the person whom he is defending is guilty of a crime and has accepted it in front of his lawyer.
From a moral point of view
If you see this from a moral point of view where an accused is defended for a crime, it might seem unfair, but according to the general principle during the criminal trials, the accused has every right to get himself free from punishment until he has been proved guilty and as per the lawyer even if he knows that his client is guilty of a crime he can bring out the facts that are true and present them in such a manner that can prove the verdict not guilty, but he obviously cannot induce the witness to lie on the stand.
Also, an attorney cannot force his client to hide any information, although he himself can choose not to disclose some facts in the court himself, which is to say that he has the right not to disclose such information that may prove the client guilty. Also, when an attorney undertakes to defend a person, he becomes duty-bound as he entered into a contract with the client where he has pledged himself for devoting his skills and knowledge and defend the client against a charge.
Standing with truth
It is fair moral, and just for a lawyer to use all his knowledge and defend the accused in a lawful manner in the court. Even if the one who has approached the lawyer has admitted his guilt to him, he still may proceed to defend him against the charge.
As an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to bring forward all the facts that will help the tribunal to decide the ultimate truth does not stand to one careful analysis this statement shows a misunderstanding of the nature Of a criminal proceeding The law gives the complete right to the guilty or accused to defend himself in the court. The concept of men's Rea should be proven before announcing someone guilty of a crime.
The objective of a court is to see into the matter and provide justice by looking into evidence and facts. In this country, one cannot be punished for his moral guilt as it would be equal to controlling his thoughts. And one may be morally guilty without even have committed an actual offense. Also, moral guilt cannot be determined without looking into one's conscience, which is not a possibility yet.
The importance of lawyer
For deriving a certain verdict, the court has to follow specific rules and look into the evidence and proves it is a duty of a prosecutor to see that the rules of evidence are complied with during the trial. And hence the defense fulfills his role by defending and the council by looking into the proof of the prosecution.
The contradiction still exists apparently on whether an attorney should be defending the one whom he believes to be innocent or he should defend anyone whether guilty of the crime or not?
Morally a lawyer cannot force or make the accused lie in front of the court of law, although he can hide certain facts by himself and present accurate facts, which can save the guilty from being convicted in front of the court. This right of a lawyer is in a negative sense. He has the right not to furnish certain information. However, this cannot be extended to the witnesses.
For example, if a person has committed some crime and there are certain positive and negative facts, the attorney is in the position of hiding the negative ones and stating the true positive facts to safeguard his client, but he cannot make the witnesses lie or conceive any information in front of the court.
The lawyer is in full position to defend the guilt of his client, but he has to do it all by lawful means and with proper knowledge about the seriousness of the crime and the guilt of his client, which should turn out to be moral and just.
It is the legal right of the accused to be acquitted if he's not proven guilty in court; no one can take away the right off the accused to be acquitted.
The moral guilt of a man cannot be judged by men present in the court regardless of him being morally guilty or not, nor can anyone decide the degree of guilt or innocence. It can only be indeed judged by looking into his conscience, which a common man cannot do.
The legal position
From a legal point of view, it appears to be a little doubtful scenario to defend the guilty even after knowing that he is guilty of a crime. Under the law, it is a lawyer's duty to defend a crime regardless of his personal opinion about the offense made by the guilty. Even an accused has been given the right to get proper assistance from a lawyer in his defense.
It cannot be said that the right to get counsel is only the right of an innocent man. In the eyes of the law, even a guilty person is equal in power to take proper defense.
Hence it is the duty of the court as well as the lawyer to get him through a fair trial and good defense.
The burden to prove the innocence of a crime is upon the state. It is the duty of the district attorney to look for any information that could prove the guilty innocent. There are numerous safeguards to protect the innocent the same safeguards also protect the guilty. It is essential To remember that the concept of guilt is a subjective concept, and it cannot be determined by any lawyer or the public at large until the accused is proven guilty in the court so till that time, he can take all the protections and Safeguards offered by the law.
The lawyer acting as a defense its offer guilty is merely acting under the oath of an attorney to uphold the constitutional laws of the land. If any person Denys to protect or counsel the guilty, he is indirectly taking away the fundamental human rights of that citizen. It is the duty of an attorney to protect and safeguard every citizen's right in front of the law. The lawyers always have to protect these rights assigned to the citizens by the constitution unless the court deprives them.
According to the constitution, everyman, regardless of being guilty or innocent, has the right to claim his constitutional rights in front of the law. He has the ability to claim justice in matters where he's not been proven guilty, and she cannot be convicted and punished unless there is legal evidence about it. For him to be proven innocent, he can approach the lawyer to defend him, and it is the lawyer's legal duty, regardless of his personal views, to defend the guilty and try to prove his innocence by presenting true and relatable facts.
Conclusion
The whole point of this article was to find out whether the accused right to a fair trial is justified. The question arises only when it comes to satisfying the moral issues when the guilty has accepted his guilt in front of his attorney. However, regardless of the personal opinion of any lawyer, it is his duty to protect the rights of his citizens. An attorney should not think of it to be a moral task. He should instead consider it as his job in the spirit of his profession to protect the rights of the citizens of his country.
Comments