Replies

His attorney is there to make sure that he does not get the death penalty, that the prosecution does not take advantage of his ignorance of the legal process, and that the accused's rights are not violated... even though he is guilty.

Huh?

I could do a better job refuting my point in a dismissal of your thesis than you do in making it.

You are missing the whole point of the criminal justice system in the first place. We defend the "rights" of the guilty to defend the rights of the innocent. Since we generally don't know the guilty from innocent, we presume innocence. Every defendent is innocent until convicted.

The problem comes in when the "innocent" makes it impossible for the defense attorney to maintain the presumption of innocence. Showing him where the bodies are is one example of this. At that point, the ethical thing to do is resign the case and tell the defendent to shut the hell up, then do the moral thing by making an anonymous call to the police pointing them to the relevant evidence. Academically, this may be a breach of ethics, but only an academic needs to care about it.

Your post is right on. One thing that jumped out at me is your statement: Since we generally don't know the guilty from the innocent, we presume innocence.

Exactly--we generally don't know.

As for your scenario about the lawyer, being told by the client where the bodies are, resigning, that is also a good suggestion. As you said, he could then call in the information to the police.

Of course, if the former client finds out it was his ex-attorney who gave incriminating information about the ex-client to the police, the ex-client will sue the attorney for damages if he is convicted. But what the heck, what's a little ol' lawsuit that will probably result in monetary loss for the attorney? At least the attorney has the satisfaction of knowing he has done the right thing.

Being satisfied that you have done the right thing is worth more than any money. I just wish more contractors, salesmen, credit card companies, telemarketers, politicians, zoning board members, storekeepers, insurance adjustors, stockbrokers, bankers, cable companies, utility companies, HMO's, postal workers, and other persons would take that to heart.

We defend the "rights" of the guilty to defend the rights of the innocent.

Very true, and very noble. However, it is the perpetrator who challenges the law and the legal process - not the victim. Those challenges have muddied, confused, and outright violated the rights of the innocent. Until the legal profession is tempered, the rights of the criminal will take precedence over the rights of the innocent. Personal experience has highlighted this, much to our anger and frustration.

At that point, the ethical thing to do is resign the case and tell the defendent to shut the hell up, then do the moral thing by making an anonymous call to the police pointing them to the relevant evidence.

If this is the moral thing to do, why would the call be anonymous?