Should Attorneys be Interrogated for Defending Certain Clients?

By I.A. Noah

California lawyer Stephen Feldman, who defended David Westerfield, convicted of murdering a seven-year-old girl, is a good example of this. Cases like his, have rendered a severe doubt among common citizens, especially when it comes to justice, wherever you go.

Do lawyers solely work for pay?

As the world knows, lawyers work as hard as they can, to defend their clients. In most cases, be it murder, rape or whatever, clients’ crimes are understood to mean nothing to most attorneys. Most people believe that these attorneys are after nothing other than money. In other words, the citizens think that lawyers are not after true justice. Indeed, attorneys could always provide one or more legal excuses that give their clients the rights to be defended no matter what crimes they commit. Ranging from penalty minimization to seeking for justice in favor of their clients. Apparently, the truth of the matter is probably the massive amount of money these kinds of clients pay their defense attorneys. This is because, we do not often see criminals, of low-income backgrounds under the firm protections of good attorneys.

 The complexity of law

For those who are familiar with the concepts of law, there are two terms with it; ‘legal guilt’ and ‘factual guild’. The ‘legal guilt’ is what courts of law consider in order to determine one is guilty or not. In which defense attorneys, as well as accusers’ attorneys, are required to present pieces of evidence in courtrooms. However, sometimes, the evidence could be false evidence in witness forms. The denial of the accuser could mean nothing, especially when the defendant or vice versa, is able to come up with more witnesses than the other. Therefore, with the assistance of good lawyers, the factual guilty defendant or accuser could easily end up in sending his or her innocent opponent to jail.

An example of false witnesses

At the apex of his boxing career, Rubin ‘Hurricane’ Carter was convicted of a triple murder. As such, he was placed behind bars for nearly two decades. In fact, Carter was arrested in the October of 1966, alongside his friend, John Artis. The reason for the arrest was that Carted had matched the eyewitness description. They were later cleared after the survivor had failed to declare him as the gunman in question. Months later, two other eyewitnesses during a new trial claimed that Carter and Artis committed the crime, even though, there was no evidence that linked them to the scene. It was then confirmed that the two witnesses were nothing but petty criminals, who received money for the claim against Carter and Artis. Besides, there are countless examples of how the lawsuits took innocent people in jails, or even to the death rows.

 

The reasons lawyers have the rights to defend their criminal clients

Ask a lawyer this question, he or she will always find something to say. As we would say during our school days, “A good liar always makes a good lawyer.” On the other hand, it is actually impossible to see every lawyer as an individual, willing to defend a lie. Nevertheless, we cannot deny the fact that many citizens wish lawyers who defend guilty clients should also answer legal interrogations that could lead them into being penalized. Doesn’t this sound like true justice for all? Of course, not. This is because that is not how the legal mechanism works. The mechanism of law is way beyond the understandings of most ordinary citizens of various countries across the world. For this reason, lawyers, as professionals, and have the legal rights to defend their clients irrespective of how ugly their clients’ crimes are. That does not denote that attorneys are anti-justice.

Justice for a common man and all

As complex as the law is, the ‘factual guilt’ is what a common man expects from every lawsuit in which he or she is involved. Unfortunately, such legal jurisdictions do not seem a reality in our time or even in the past. The bitter truth is, courts solely consider ‘legal guilt’ in order to eventually decide, if the accused is guilty or not. As a result, the ultimate justice is obviously a daydream till today. Indeed, insights of most legal cases are extremely difficult to come across. On the other hand, some are quite obvious. But legal procedures do not render just ‘apparentness’ without weak or solid evidence as the facts. Rather, legal hearings often twist towards other directions in search of solid evidence before the final decisions are made. In the absence of evidence, the complexities of lawsuits take hold.

What attorneys really do

These brave young men and women are meant to carry out a wonderful job. Like each an every one of us, some of us are good while others are the opposite, so do lawyers, police, judges or even cab drivers. Beyond a doubt, attorneys are trained to make sure that justice is carried out on all levels of our walks of lives. However, some of the deviants of what they have learned at law schools, often stand firm to defend injustice. And of course, there is always a price to pay for such deviations in the end.

 

 

Courtroom violence

In recent years, we have seen a number of violence in the courts. There could be a few reasons for the phenomenon in question. One of the reasons behind this is probably the proximity to injustice.

In conclusion

Attorneys are people who are trained to serve justice. As mentioned earlier, some are firm in terms of their pursuit of justice no matter what, while others are not. Their profession is clean and to some extent, humanitarian. In fact, irrespective of the pattern of crime committed by a defendant, the code of justice has given the defendant a set of rights to hire a lawyer. At the same time, it is the same for the attorney in question, to make sure his or her client gets the best of justice relevant to the crime in which the suspect has committed. Remember, no one is guilty unless proven guilty.