The Truth About Lawyers Essay, Research Paper

The Truth About Lawyers

Society frequently looks down upon attorneies. This is because attorneies have a long yesteryear of non being the most honorable people. A batch of lawyers use many delusory patterns when they are showing a instance in tribunal. A attorney will necessitate to make this when they are supporting a felon who is either thought or known to be guilty of a offense. Lawyers will sometimes, but non normally, prevarication to assist their client. Many more will show a & # 8216 ; false defence & # 8217 ; to support their client. & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; A false defence is an effort to & # 8216 ; convert the justice or jury that facts established by the province and known to the lawyer to be true are non true, or that the facts known to the lawyer to be false or true & # 8217 ; & # 8221 ; ( Mitchell 18 ) . Although many people think lawyers should make whatever it takes to support their client, attorneies should be prohibited from showing a false instance.

Citizens of the United States are guiltless until proved guilty. Every individual charged with a offense will necessitate a test to happen whether they are guiltless or guilty. They are besides given the right to hold a attorney whether or non they can afford it. The attorneies we assign to the instances have to support their client whether the individual is guiltless or non ( Subin 5 ) . If a attorney knows his client is guilty but his client chooses to plead non guilty, the attorney must make what the client petitions. & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; The attorney is non to see whether the client & # 8217 ; s cause is right or incorrect. . . & # 8221 ; ( Katsh 2 ) . This helps people to have the test the Constitution promises them. & # 8220 ; A false defence may be necessary to continue the strict procedure by which guilt is determined & # 8221 ; because, if a false defence was non used, some people would ne’er acquire a test because no attorneies would support them ( Subin 13 ) . These are the grounds that lawyers may necessitate to utilize a false defence.

However, a attorney can show a instance so good that a felon will be released into society. When the attorney knows his client is guilty but still allows him to plead guiltless and defends him and wins, he is seting danger back on the streets. & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; There is something more of import than detecting truth in every instance & # 8221 ; ( Katsh 3 ) . This may sound bad but it means that in every instance, the intent is to convict the guilty party ; non to happen out whether every individual small fact is wholly true. Furthermore, & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; the place of a & # 8216 ; defence lawyer & # 8217 ; does non automatically supply person with a free base on balls to moral irresponsibleness toward the remainder of the community & # 8221 ; ( Lerner ) . They have the duty to penalize the people who are guilty of a offense, instead than working their hardest to acquire a condemnable dorsum on the streets. A felon who is let free will most likely commit that offense once more or even seek to perpetrate other unsafe offenses. Since they got off with one offense, they have the head set that they could acquire away with it once more. These are grounds that attorneies should non be allowed to show false instances.

On the other manus, everyone is guaranteed a just test. In order for a individual to hold a just test, they must hold a defence lawyer. Since & # 8220 ; the antagonist system requires that the attorney & # 8217 ; s chief duty be to the client, & # 8221 ; the attorney must utilize all available agencies to turn out what his client tells him to ( Katsh 2 ) . This may intend the attorney will hold to & # 8220 ; mislead oppositions & # 8221 ; and it is & # 8220 ; allowable & # 8230 ; to make anything short of lying & # 8221 ; ( Katsh 2 ) . Peoples have said, & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; it is proper to destruct a true authorities informant when indispensable to supply the suspect with a defence & # 8230 ; & # 8221 ; ( Subin 4 ) . Which means that it may be necessary to the result of the test to make these dishonest Acts of the Apostless.

Lawyers will frequently utilize a trifle to let their client to travel free. As one writer provinces, & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; legal accuity and nuance may happen an reading of the regulation which excludes its application in the really instance before the tribunal & # 8221 ; ( Cohn 102 ) . This means that the attorney will happen a manner for a peculiar regulation to be twisted another manner, so that it appears as if it does non refer to the instance in inquiry. Another illustration is that & # 8220 ; with the aid of elusive textual or legal differentiations, certain raising fast ones can be performed & # 8230 ; & # 8221 ; ( Cohn 102 ) . Many people believe, nevertheless, that & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; greater duty should be placed on attorneies non to corrupt the truth to assist their clients & # 8221 ; ( Katsh 2 ) . There are other ways for a attorney to help their client, instead than being fallacious. For case, & # 8220 ; it would be appropriate for the lawyer to reason to the jury that the available grounds is non sufficient to prolong the load of cogent evidence & # 8221 ; ( Subin 14 ) . These are why attorneies should be prevented from showing deceitful defences.

The ability to show false defences is necessary for forestalling people from acquiring lost in the legal system. Many times, a individual is prevented from acquiring a test because no lawyer & # 8217 ; s will support him. There is a demand for lawyer & # 8217 ; s to present fals

vitamin E instances because, “…it is indispensable that there be independent defence lawyers to supply protection against authorities oppression” ( Katsh 2 ) . Another writer agrees when he says, “the false defence may be necessary to continue the individual’s entree to the legal system” ( Subin 12 ) . Here is the ground for holding the rights to a just test and to an lawyer, “if there were no such right, the guilty suspect would efficaciously be deprived of a defense” ( Subin 11 ) . These are a few legitimate grounds that false defences should non be banned.

Taxpayers pay a enormous disbursal due to false instances. False instances normally drag out a long clip before they are settled and may even travel to tribunal more than one time. Taxpayers have to pay for things every clip a instance goes to tribunal. One novelist agrees when he writes, & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; the province has assumed many of the costs of enforcement. Public revenue enhancements wage for constabulary, investigators, juries, and prisons & # 8221 ; ( Friedman 133 ) . This same writer says that, & # 8220 ; the Public pays for the justice & # 8217 ; s salary and courtroom overhead & # 8230 ; & # 8221 ; ( Friedman 133 ) . No 1 likes to pay revenue enhancements, particularly if it & # 8217 ; s traveling to travel towards allowing a condemnable spell free to roll the streets. These are more grounds that attorneies should be forbidden from showing false judicial proceedings.

It is against the codification of moralss to lie. Even though & # 8220 ; some have argued that a condemnable suspect has a right to perpetrate bearing false witness & # 8230 ; the impression of a right to perpetrate bearing false witness has been forcefully rejected by the tribunals and by the organized saloon & # 8230 ; & # 8221 ; ( Subin 12 ) . Perjury, by the manner, is & # 8220 ; the offense of wilfully giving false grounds on curse & # 8221 ; ( Macdonald 358 ) . It says in its ain definition that it is a offense, so the thought that it is alright is absurd. Another author besides remarks that, & # 8220 ; deliberate vagueness is rather common in jurisprudence & # 8221 ; ( Friedman 264 ) . These things should non be allowed in the United States legal system. After all, & # 8220 ; the suspect is non entitled to derive an acquittal by any available agencies & # 8221 ; ( Subin 12 ) . One writer says it best when he declares, & # 8220 ; these evildoings non merely decrease the public & # 8217 ; s assurance in the profession, but they besides subtly sabotage the public & # 8217 ; s regard for the regulation of jurisprudence & # 8221 ; ( Burger 58 ) .

Last, the intent of our legal system is to convict the guilty and let the inexperienced person to travel free. This is shown when Subin says, & # 8220 ; jurisprudence enforcement officers have the duty to convict the guilty and to do certain they do non convict the guiltless & # 8221 ; ( Subin 5 ) . This thought is besides reinforced when another writer writes, & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; the rule end of the condemnable justness system is & # 8216 ; truth & # 8217 ; & # 8230 ; it is contrary to the end of & # 8216 ; truth & # 8217 ; to allow a felon defence lawyer to set on a & # 8216 ; false defence & # 8217 ; & # 8221 ; ( Mitchell 18 ) . It merely doesn & # 8217 ; Ts make sense that people could believe that a & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; defence advocate has no comparable duty to determine or show the truth & # 8221 ; ( Subin 5 ) . This is why an lawyer should non be authorized to show a fancied instance.

In decision, leting attorneies to show a false instance in tribunal is a bad thought. Even though many people think it is necessary and there is nil incorrect with it, there are excessively many illustrations that point out that it is inappropriate to digest these proceedings. The writer, Harry Subin, says it the best when he says, & # 8220 ; I argue that neither the right to a defence nor the demands of the adversary system warrant the presentation of a false defence & # 8221 ; ( Subin 5 ) .

Bibliography

Burger, Warren E. & # 8220 ; The ABA Has Fallen Down on the Job. & # 8221 ; The Wall Street Journal. 10 August 1994. Rpt. in Ethics. Leone, Bruno and others, explosive detection systems. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc. , 1995.

Cohn, Georg. Existentialism and Legal Science. New York: Oceana Publications, Inc. , 1967.

Friedman, Lawrence M. The Legal System: A Social Science Perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1975.

Katsh, M. Ethan, erectile dysfunction. Taking Sides: Legal Issues. Guilford, Connecticut: The Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc. , 1995.

Lerner, Michael and others. & # 8220 ; The Moral Obligation of Defense Lawyers. & # 8221 ; Tikkun. July/Aug. 1997: 7-10. SIRS Knowledge Source. Internet. 31. Oct. 2000. Available hypertext transfer protocol: //sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-cl929-s11492wrdtype=ART & A ; artno=017244.

Macdonald, A. M. , erectile dysfunction. Webster & # 8217 ; s Dictionary: New Edition. New York: Pyramid Communications, Inc. , 1972.

Mitchell, John B. & # 8220 ; Reasonable Doubts Are Where You Find Them: A Response to Professor Subin & # 8217 ; s Position on the Criminal Lawyer & # 8217 ; s & # 8216 ; Different Mission. & # 8217 ; & # 8221 ; Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics. Vol. 1. 1987. Rpt. in Taking Sides: Legal Issues. Ed. M. Ethan Katsh. Guilford, Connecticut: The Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc. , 1995.

Subin, Harry I. & # 8220 ; The Criminal Lawyer & # 8217 ; s & # 8216 ; Different Mission & # 8217 ; Contemplations on the & # 8216 ; Right & # 8217 ; to Show a False Case, & # 8221 ; Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics. Vol. 30. 1987. Rpt. in Taking Sides: Legal Issues. Ed. M. Ethan Katsh. Guilford, Connecticut: The Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc.,1995.