Why would a lawyer defend a guilty man? Does a lawyer feel guilty?
Why would a lawyer defend a guilty man? Does a lawyer feel guilty? – What?
The defence is, above all, to prevent the innocent from being wronged; humanity cannot easily distinguish between those who are guilty and those who are innocent; and if only those who are clearly innocent have access to criminal defence, a large number of innocent people will surely be wronged.
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.
Abraham stood up to defend Sodom and Gomorrah when God wanted to destroy 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. Abraham says, “I dare to speak to God, though I am dust.” If the 50 righteous men were five short, would you destroy the whole city for five short?”
He said, “If I see 45 people there, I don’t destroy the city. 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 the human justice system is bound to be flawed, that the worst system is to kill thousands and not one, but that it is not appropriate to spare thousands of sinners, and that a balance must be sought.
God agrees with Abraham that as long as there are enough good people, the whole group, including the bad ones, should be spared. But at the same time he told Abraham how to balance the wrong with the wrong, so he ended up with ten.
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 defence is to prevent innocent people from being wronged, that human beings cannot easily distinguish between those who are guilty and those who are innocent, and that if only those who are clearly innocent are able to obtain a criminal defence, a large number of innocent people will be wronged.
Sodom and Gomorrah are heinous criminals, but they should still be defended and defended for those who have committed such crimes, in order to prevent innocent people from being prosecuted.
Secondly, the God in the Genesis is happy to challenge Abraham, and that’s what he’s told him that acquiescence is evil.
Any authority of a secular society should be challenged, and even God could accept Abraham’s questions, let alone human beings of limited reason.
Even the best human ethics and justice systems have the potential to kill innocent people by mistake. So, the judiciary has to take a lawyer’s question with its head, otherwise it will inevitably lead to judicial arbitrariness, corruption and incompetence.
Finally, God in the Genesis taught Abraham that justice in a secular society is the search for the right balance, and that the defence 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 realities, that Western society is experiencing the danger of losing itself, that it no longer believes in its past and future, that nationalistic legal history theories cannot explain the fundamental changes that have taken place in Western legal systems in the past, or show their current direction.
We must, therefore, start at the source of the entire legal tradition, go as far as possible in the broadest possible historical context and trace it back into the current predicament. 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 prefers to pursue an affair, and his proper wife Hera ‘ s repeated 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, to the absence of absolute truth, and to the absence of strict boundaries between good and evil.
In addition, this has led to the ancient Greek humanist tradition, the great variety of gods that have justified the behaviour of every individual, the push of individual values to the limit, and the idea that Protegora, the representative of the wise, even called “the measure of everything.”
If the origin of the defence system is traced back to ancient Greece, it may have two negative consequences.
First, the defence lacks the necessary constraints to justice. Because of the competitive relationship between God and God itself, the greatness of power among the divine worlds will be followed by mankind. In the absence of absolute truth, the aim of the defence is to make a person guilty and to do everything possible to ensure the best interests of the person concerned, without subject to any rule.
Secondly, the humanist tradition would lead to an overstretching of the human rights of 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 making rhetoric. 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.
Since it’s yours, and it’s your father, then this dog is your father, and you’re the brother of those dogs.
This is clearly a logical assertion.
From Plato’s point of view, the lawyer had to do what the client wanted, like a client’s slave, 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 ancient Greek humanist traditions, another source of Western culture, the Hebrew-Christian faith, which emphasizes divineism, the monotheistic belief confirms the objective existence of absolute truth, the word of God is the truth, the word of the late, the word of God is the word of God.
The defence system should therefore be bound by absolute truth and must be exercised within the limits of the rules. According to this belief, defenders are restricted in their defence, and the ninth commandment of the Ten Commandments is that they should not be allowed to testify to the frame-up.
Human rights must also be restricted, 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 does not question God in order to attack his absence, but rather to affirm to God the legitimacy of God’s punishment by ensuring that the innocent are not wronged. 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 counsel is not unlimited and should be subject to reasonable restrictions in order to punish the crime. 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 consistent 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.
For example, Professor Ho, a prominent legal scholar, has been commissioned to act as counsel for the defendant Moi in the Hangzhou Nanny Arson case. Strictly speaking, Professor Ho accepted the assignment of the accused Moxie, perhaps with symbolic significance, and would not alter the sentence of his conviction.
However, if the defence ‘ s right to defence is fully guaranteed through this trial, and the innovation of the fire, property, etc. system is promoted, the justice sought by the law is largely achieved.
After the Second World War, a famous writer, Xiaoqian, interviewed the trial at the International Tribunal for the Far East, failed to 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 clear signs of the unbridled repression is that the Government has begun to persecute defence lawyers. I’m sorry.
A society based on the rule of law needs lawyers, especially for those whom the public dislikes. The Chinese dream of the rule of law can become a reality only when more and more lawyers are engaged in this great cause.
I don’t know.
Keep your eyes on the road.
