Lawyers refuse to take up arrested terrorist's case

Rediff ^ | 6 Dec., 2008 | Rediff

[Ancient Drive]

darn.. lawyers with a conscience. we need more of those here in America.

[ataDude]

Exactly what I was thinking.

[YdontUleaveLibs]

He’s going to have to get Ramsey Clark.

[randog]

So when does this Kasab character hit the talk show circuit here in the states? Does he have a myspace page yet?

[GoodDay]

“There are certain ethical restrains which may stop a conscientious lawyer from defending certain accused persons. When a lawyer is aware that the accused was in fact caught red handed committing an extremely serious offence, there is no question of us appearing in this case.”

How deliciously un-American! Can you imagine a lawyer in the U.S. saying something like that? Big fat reputations and big fat fees can be made defending the guilty (”Well, just because someone’s guilty of murder doesn’t mean he doesn’t have rights...”).

[kbennkc]

I don't know anything about the Indian government , but if the government of the United States , the greatest nation God has ever given man says you are guilty , I will still defend you fellow Freepers .

[RKBA Democrat]

Wow. Attorneys with the integrity to refuse to defend the obviously guilty. Clearly they come from a very different culture.

[Clint Williams]

Not a popular thing to be said on this board, but I am glad such as you are there (so long as you practice ethically and honestly). By all means, let every accusation be heard and tested -- without that don't we have little more than lynch mobs?

Wasn't that what Nuremberg was all about? Establishing the historical record and reason the for subsequent sentences?

I wonder: Is it Indian ethics, fear of defending the extremely unpopular, or something else driving these rejections?

[MyTwoCopperCoins]

Actually it is clarified in the article itself:

Advocate Mubin Solkar, appearing for accused in the 7/11 Mumbai serial train blasts case and the recent Indian Mujahideen [Images] case, agreed with Memon and said, "Although it is unconstitutional to refuse legal aid to any accused, we have seen with our own eyes the arrested terrorist shooting at innocent people. Aiding him means burning our own fingers."

[Clint Williams]

Thank you for the clarification, MyTwoCopperCoins. I don't know if it's codified in the law, but I'd certainly excuse any attorney on the basis of "personal involvement."

[the invisib1e hand]

no worries. there’s a boatload of American lawyers who’ll do it.

[Iscool]

I’ll defend him, if he pays me up front, in cash...I’ll even attend his execution, for an additional fee...

[TheConservativeParty]

Hey, how come we have lots of scummy defense laywers who love to get killers off on technicalities? I bet one of the ACLU lawyers will step up and defend this person, who obviously was the victim of a bad childhood and cannot be blamed for what he has done.

[Revolting cat!]

The utter idiocy of the world’s best justice system is exposed right there in the Third World country. I mean there are many, even here, who insist that O.J. did not commit the murders, because, because, hold your breath, because he was judged “NOT GUILTY” by a “jury of his peers”. We have a lot to learn from the Indians.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Kurukshetra War - Kali Yuga ping...

To be added to or removed from this ping list, please FReepmail Sir Francis Dashwood.

[little jeremiah]

If I put the keyword Kaliyuga will it help you find the articles I find?

[little jeremiah]

“Aiding him means burning our own fingers.”

Well said.

[ajay_kumar]

Like did some one read his Miranda rights before apprehending him? How sad!

[ajay_kumar]

Liberal thinking gone mad....spend gobs of tax payer money on a “proper” trial of a criminal whose crime was witnessed by 10,000+ witnesses. Highly paid judge, court appointed lawyers, bailiffs, court clerks, court house police protection & upkeep, etc etc all for “feel good” liberals?