Why would a lawyer argue for a suspect, even if the evidence was conclusive?
According to reports, a prominent legal scholar, Professor Ho, was commissioned to be the defense of the Hangzhou nanny arson case against Moi.
It is obvious that it would be unreasonable to defend the accused in the thousands, if only to be famous. Professor Ho has long been known, and the defense of this case will in a way only sacrifice the name of Professor Ho.
The crimes committed by the accused in this case are heinous. But why would a lot of lawyers, including Professor Ho, defend such “bad people”?
To illustrate this problem, it is necessary to mention the origins of the criminal defence system.
Most of us today go back to ancient Greece and forget another important source of Western civilization — the Hebrew-Christian faith. One of the creations of the Moses Five in the 15th century B.C. was written about the defence, much earlier than the ancient Greek civilization that emerged in the 8th century B.C.
In chapter 18 of the Genesis, 17-33, when God wanted to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham stood up to defend them.
Abraham came near and said, “Are you going to destroy the good and the evil? If there were 50 righteous people in the city, would you still destroy the place? Can’t you judge the Lord of the earth?
The Lord said, “If I see fifty righteous men in the city of Sodom, I will forgive the people of that place for their sake. I’m sorry.
Abraham said, “I dare to speak to God, even though I am dust. If five of these 50 were short, would you destroy the city for five?
He said, “If I see 45 people there, I don’t destroy the city. I’m sorry.
Abraham said to him, “What if there were 40?”
He said, “For these 40s, I wouldn’t do it either. I’m sorry.
Abraham said, “Please don’t be angry, let me say, “What if there were thirty?”
He said, “If I see 30 of them there, I won’t do it. I’m sorry.
Abraham said, “I dare speak to God. What if there were 20?”
He said, “For these 20s, I will not destroy the city. I’m sorry.
Abraham said, “Please don’t be angry, I repeat, what if there were ten?”
He said, “For these ten reasons, I will not destroy the city. “The Lord and Abraham left after they had spoken, and Abraham went back to his place.
The case of God in the Genesis, who wanted to destroy the city of sin, vividly taught Abraham what human justice meant and how to deal with the guilty, laid down the basic principles of the criminal defence system.
God can distinguish between guilt and innocence, but not humans, and God uses this case to make Abraham think about how humans can build a system to distinguish between guilt and innocence.
In this case of God’s interactive learning with humanity, Abraham questioned God’s decision to destroy the city for 50 people, and God was willing to discuss it with him, and Abraham ended up with ten.
God is teaching Abraham that there are inherent flaws in the human justice system, that the worst system is to kill thousands of people by mistake and not one, but that it is not appropriate to spare thousands of guilty people, and therefore to seek a balance.
God agrees with Abraham, and as long as there are enough good people, we should spare the whole group, including the bad guys.
But at the same time, tell Abraham how to balance the wrong with the wrong, so in the end, Abraham ended up with 10 people.
This story is crucial to the criminal defence system.
God has given Abraham a live defense course through “Teaching Cases”.
This story tells us, first of all, that the defense is to prevent the innocent from being wronged, that human beings cannot easily distinguish between those who are guilty and those who are not guilty, and that if only those who are clearly innocent can get a criminal defense, a large number of innocent people will be wronged.
Sodom and Gomorrah are heinous criminals, but they should still be justified, and they should be defended by those who have committed the most serious crimes in order to prevent innocent people from being prosecuted.
Second, God in Genesis is happy to challenge Abraham, and that is what he is told that acquiescence to grievance is a sin, that any authority of secular society should be questioned, that even God can accept Abraham’s questions, not to mention the government institutions made up of rational human beings.
Even the best human morality and justice systems can kill innocent people by mistake. So, the judiciary has to take the lawyer’s questions to heart, otherwise it’s bound to lead to judicial arbitrariness, corruption and incompetence.
Finally, God in Genesis taught Abraham that justice in a secular society is the search for the right balance, and that the defense system is no exception.
The examination of the origin of the criminal defence system is not a purely historical inquiry, but the original.
“Our law has become a dead end today.” People no longer believe that the law is based on universal reality, that Western society is in danger of losing itself, that it no longer believes in its past and its future, that nationalist legal history theory cannot explain the fundamental changes that have taken place in the legal systems of the West in the past, and that it cannot show its current direction. So, we have to start at the source of the entire legal tradition, and get as deep as possible in the broadest historical context as possible, and trace it back into the current dilemma. I’m sorry.
The ancient Greeks worship multi-gods, and the Greek myths are like humans, with many desires, countless power struggles, and the gods are alike.
It is by overthrowing its father that Zeus, the king of the gods in Greek mythology, seizes the supreme power.
The father of Zeus, Clonos, also overthrew his father, Uranos, to power.
Zeus likes to pursue an affair, and his proper wife Hera’s multiple arrests still fail to stop Zeus’ affair, leading to endless quarrels between Zeus’ wives and often violent clashes. This system of faith leads to the opposite of truth, without absolute truth, without the strict limits of good and evil.
Also, this has led to the ancient Greek humanist tradition, with a variety of Gods giving every individual a legitimate explanation for his or her actions, and the individual’s value being pushed to the limit, and the wise figure Protegora even raised the proposition that “the human being is the measure of everything.”
If the origin of the defence system is traced back to ancient Greece, it may have two negative consequences.
First of all, the defense lacks the necessary constraints for justice. Because of the competition between God and God itself, the greatness of the strong among God’s worlds will be followed by mankind. In the absence of absolute truth, the defence is to justify the crime, so long as all efforts are made to ensure the best interests of the person concerned, there is no rule.
Second, the humanistic tradition will lead to an over-stretching of human rights in the defence system, while ignoring human rights should be limited.
Plato was once sharply critical of the defenders at the time, thinking that they were turning black and white, changing concepts, and conspiring. He described the acts of these people in his conversations.
– Isn’t that the boy’s father?
– Of course.
– Isn’t that yours?
– Of course it’s mine.
And since it’s yours, and it’s the father, then this dog is your father, and you’re the brother of the dogs.
This is clearly a logical assertion.
From Plato’s point of view, the lawyer had to do what the client wanted, like the slave of the client, and he said, “The lawyer is always busy, it seems that there’s always some power to drive him away… he’s a slave.
In front of his master, he argued with his fellow slaves… As a result, the lawyers became sharper and more subtle; he learned to be nice to his master, to act in his presence; his heart was narrow, and since he began to cheat and retaliate, he became abnormal and distorted. I’m sorry.
Unlike the ancient Greek humanist tradition, another source of Western culture, the Hebrew-Christian faith, which emphasizes divineism, the monotheistic belief that confirms the objective existence of absolute truth, the word of God is the truth, the word of God, the word of God, the word of God, the word of God.
Therefore, the defence system should be bound by absolute truth, and the defence must be exercised within the rules. According to this belief, the defense is restricted in its defense, and the ninth commandment of the Ten Commandments, “No false testimony of the framer.”
Human rights must also be limited, as Abraham has learned in his case of defending the city of sin, and human rights cannot be guaranteed at the expense of punishment.
The lengthy description of the origin of the defence system is not intended to clarify the origins of the defence system in order to understand how the system is defined.
First, lawyers must defend the legitimate rights and interests of their clients within the limits of the law. Lawyers are not so much defending the interests of their clients as defending the dignity of the law by defending their interests.
Just as Abraham’s questioning of God is not about fighting God’s absence, it is about affirming to God that ensuring that innocent people are not wronged is the only way to guarantee the legitimacy of God’s punishment.
Therefore, the right to a defence must be restricted by law and lawyers should, to the extent permitted by law, obtain a legal interest for the person concerned. In the Decalogue, “No false testimony against the framer” is the rule to be followed in any civilized society.
In any country, it is a crime for a defender to help a suspect, a defendant to conceal, destroy, forge evidence or a confession, threaten a witness to perjury.
Secondly, criminal law should find a balance between the two values of punishing crime and safeguarding human rights. The right to a lawyer is not unlimited and, in order to punish the crime, his defence should be subject to reasonable restrictions.
Likewise, punishing crime is not the only value. In order to develop a defence system, the need to punish crime can also be adequately compromised.
The judiciary and lawyers are in the same legal profession, and it should be clear to any legal person that defence lawyers are in line with the aims of the judiciary, that they are defending the dignity of the law, not only to protect innocent citizens, but also to ensure justice.
Strictly speaking, Professor Ho took orders from the defendant Moe, perhaps only symbolically, and would not change the sentence against Moe.
But if the defence’s right to defence is fully guaranteed through this trial, and if it promotes innovation in systems such as fire protection, property, etc., then the justice sought by the law is largely achieved.
After the Second World War, a famous writer, Xiaogung, in an interview with the International Tribunal for the Far East, did not understand why the court allowed lawyers to defend the vicious war criminals until he was beaten to the right.
Professor DeShowits of Harvard University said, “Does a country have real freedom, and one of the tests is its attitude towards those who are guilty and who defend the world’s indefatigable?
In most authoritarian countries, independent defence teams do not exist. It is true that one of the obvious signs of authoritarian oppression is that the government is beginning to persecute defense lawyers. I’m sorry.
A society based on the rule of law needs lawyers, especially those who defend those whom the public hates. The Chinese dream of the rule of law will become a reality only if more and more lawyers are committed to this great cause.
I don’t know.
Keep your eyes on the road.
