Is it ethical to defend the indefensible?

Discuss the merits and deficiencies of political theories and philosophical questions.

Announcements Posted on
Enter our travel-writing competition for the chance to win a Nikon 1 J3 camera 21-05-2013
Sign in to Reply
  1. KasanDude's Avatar
    • Exalted Member
    • Posts: 252
    Re: Is it ethical to defend the indefensible?
    It depends on what you mean by "defend." EVERYONE has a right to a fair trial and to defend themselves. Lawyers who defend murderors are not unethical people, as they are facilitating a basic human right. In that sense, they are not really "defending" the actions, they are providing the means for someone "accused" of something to attempt to prove they are innocent.

    People that try to defend killing or raping someone, however, by pleading innocence when they know they are guilty are, in my opinion, unethical even though they have a right to claim so.
  2. jeffferson's Avatar
    • New Member
    • Posts: 14
    Re: Is it ethical to defend the indefensible?
    I'm not so sure 'defend' is entirely the correct term. I and my collegues 'represent' clients rather than defend or prosecute them. My professional duty is to represent my client to the best of my abilities and to do it fearlessly. Provided I do not lie on my client's behalf or deliberately mislead the court then I feel I have in part complied with my professional duty. Moreover, in terms of ethics, to afford someone the right to be represented by a professional advocate accords with a societal presumption that all parties should be equal in arms and if that is right then I believe I have also fulfilled my ethical obligation to society.

    Ethics of defending the indefensible? Perhaps we first have to establish whether the defendant is indefensible, and typically in the UK that should come post trial.

    Knowing that your client might be guilty of the offence charged is one thing and a matter for those tasked with adjudicating on guilt, legal representatives are no so tasked. Moreover, to deprive a person the right to be heard for want of having an advocate represent them by way of puting their case is the greater injustice in my view, and thus the greater ethical challenge.
    Last edited by jeffferson; 17-07-2012 at 11:37.
  3. ufo2012's Avatar
    • Exalted and Worshipped Member
    • Posts: 1,375
    Re: Is it ethical to defend the indefensible?
    (Original post by Kigreg)
    I wanted to know your thoughts about the fact that people who are seen as 'monsters' in the eyes of society are defended in courts even though they have done things which are inexcusable such as murder (mass), rape (mass) etc.

    Furthermore, do you think not only should these people have the right to be defended, but should the barrister be able to drop the case, or not take it on, or tell the judge if they know their client is guilty?
    If the barrister has not taken the case, they don't have an obligation to do so.

    On the other hand, they should be able to drop the case if they later find out a piece of information which the defendant did not tell them in the first place that could prejudice the case or the standing of the barrister.

    They could tell the judge if the client is guilty, but this would go against attorney-client privilege, but at the same time, if it is a jury trial it probably wouldn't make any difference as the judge is not the deciding factor.
  4. ilikeindra's Avatar
    • Banned
    • Posts: 9
    • Warning points: 1000
    Re: Is it ethical to defend the indefensible?
    what perchance defines the "indefensible"?

    Anything goes in life, get with it.
  5. jeffferson's Avatar
    • New Member
    • Posts: 14
    Re: Is it ethical to defend the indefensible?
    (Original post by ufo2012)
    If the barrister has not taken the case, they don't have an obligation to do so.

    On the other hand, they should be able to drop the case if they later find out a piece of information which the defendant did not tell them in the first place that could prejudice the case or the standing of the barrister.

    They could tell the judge if the client is guilty, but this would go against attorney-client privilege, but at the same time, if it is a jury trial it probably wouldn't make any difference as the judge is not the deciding factor.
    Whoever posted the above trash check your facts before giving advice. It's ok to give an opinion but not misleading drivel. Just about everything you've said is incorrect.

    Initially,you issue in respect of the barrister profession and so it will come as a surprise to you to find a barrister cannot abandon a client because they so choose.

    And they most definitely cannot tell the judge that their client is guilty, or anyone else for that matter. On your advice every case would end up being appealed.

    Please confine your advice to areas where you are qualified. To mislead others is perpetuaitng an ignorance, in this case yours.
Sign in to Reply
Share this discussion:  
Useful resources
Article updates
Moderators

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 volunteers looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Reputation gems:
The Reputation gems seen here indicate how well reputed the user is, red gem indicate negative reputation and green indicates a good rep.
Post rating score:
These scores show if a post has been positively or negatively rated by our members.