Shouldn't legal professionals have some moral responsibility towards society?

Legality and morality are conceptually completely different. What is legally tenable,may not be morally so and vice versa. To illustrate the point a little expansively, a theft is a crime irrespective of its purpose - even if I steal or rob to save somebody from starvation. Coming to the role of lawyers in ensuring fair dispensation of justice,they too have their own professional and ethical code of conduct but tragically it is more often flouted and violated than is permissible by a civilized society.

Legal professionals have a moral binding to their clients who hire them and pay them. The lawyer cannot be expected to earn from his client and show moral responsibility to society which does not pay him. The two are contradictory. Even a terrorist  has a right to have a lawyer who will be loyal to him and not to the society. Society interests govt lawyers should take care.

I read a long way back a very pithy definition of the term of law which elucidated it as the highest sense planted in humans and if that be so, we need not grope in the dark as to the role of an ideal lawyer.He should never be a victim of his or her guilty conscience. 

It is the job of the lawyer to defend his client once he accepts his brief. There is an opposing lawyer to debunk him if he  is presenting false evidence. The question of guilt should not arise.

That's what I feel, if Ghoda ghas se yaari karega to khayega kya' The lawyer as a professional must keep his professional ethics and go all out to protect his client.

A good comparison.  You said Professional ethics. Yes, if every professional belonging to their professions maintain professional ethics, then its Utopia. But such situation is there anywhere in the world ?

 

Professionalism is fine up to a point but knowing that the client is a hardcore criminal then how does a qualified person have only one track mind that he is in legal profession and is doing his/her job. He/she is a human being too. We all know that the judges are human beings and to err is human so they may pass a wrong judgement on the basis of false witness. Who will be the sufferer? There has to be a sense of social responsibility and not just take it as a mean to increase bank balance.

As a rule, it should work as you said. But things are happening in a different way presently. Judges were caught red handed while taking bribes.

Read this

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/03/04/india-corruption-judge-idINSGE72305J20110304

 

 

@Sandhya your point is that if it is known that a person is a hard criminal a lawyer should not protect him. But the legal system gives him also a chance to prove himself innocent and for this he needs a lawyer. This is a just system because if lawyers were to take your advice then so many innocent oersons would be portrayed as hard criminals and punished wrongly.

That's true Vijay. By taking the advice of his clients by a lawyer may lead to innocents being punished.

 

In fact if no lawyer is forthcoming to take on the case of a hardened criminal , the court normally appoints one to defend him because the law says he is innocent until proven guilty. We have had cases in our country where a few people were in prison for 30 years and were let out because there was either no evidence or because they were found innocent after some hidden evidence came into light ! So everybody is entitled to a defence even if the case is water tight like it was in the case of Nirbhaya... 

Shampa Sadhya wrote:

This is why to some extent the legal professionals loose respect of the society. Trying to save a criminal is basically a cheap act. They can easily refuse to take the case but the tragedy is they won't because at that point they only think in terms of their earning. This is horrible.

Why are you blaming only to legal professionals. Doctors, Engineers all are equals. 

 

anil wrote:

Shampa Sadhya wrote:

This is why to some extent the legal professionals loose respect of the society. Trying to save a criminal is basically a cheap act. They can easily refuse to take the case but the tragedy is they won't because at that point they only think in terms of their earning. This is horrible.

Why are you blaming only to legal professionals. Doctors, Engineers all are equals. 

True. Lack of morality is present in all professions.

 

 

@vijay

By the way I am Shampa Sadhya and not Sandhya. My opinion is that if the lawyers know that the person is a hardcore criminal then they must refuse to fight their case. Well, as you or many other has explained in this thread even I too know the rule that every client must get a lawyer but I am not thinking on legal terms rather on social responsibility. You said if lawyers take my advice then many innocents will be punished but I said the lawyers must learn to refuse the criminals because they can make out who is guilty as the clients are supposed to keep no secrets from their lawyers.

Shampa Sadhya wrote:

@vijay

By the way I am Shampa Sadhya and not Sandhya. My opinion is that if the lawyers know that the person is a hardcore criminal then they must refuse to fight their case. Well, as you or many other has explained in this thread even I too know the rule that every client must get a lawyer but I am not thinking on legal terms rather on social responsibility. You said if lawyers take my advice then many innocents will be punished but I said the lawyers must learn to refuse the criminals because they can make out who is guilty as the clients are supposed to keep no secrets from their lawyers.

There are a few cases where lawyers refused to take up cases of hard core criminals. But that kind of moral values you find in very less number of lawyers.

 

rambabu wrote:

Shampa Sadhya wrote:

@vijay

By the way I am Shampa Sadhya and not Sandhya. My opinion is that if the lawyers know that the person is a hardcore criminal then they must refuse to fight their case. Well, as you or many other has explained in this thread even I too know the rule that every client must get a lawyer but I am not thinking on legal terms rather on social responsibility. You said if lawyers take my advice then many innocents will be punished but I said the lawyers must learn to refuse the criminals because they can make out who is guilty as the clients are supposed to keep no secrets from their lawyers.

There are a few cases where lawyers refused to take up cases of hard core criminals. But that kind of moral values you find in very less number of lawyers.

 

It is not a case of moral values but a question of being professional...I am quoting what I posted earlier..

In fact if no lawyer is forthcoming to take on the case of a hardened criminal , the court normally appoints one to defend him because the law says he is innocent until proven guilty. We have had cases in our country where a few people were in prison for 30 years and were let out because there was either no evidence or because they were found innocent after some hidden evidence came into light ! So everybody is entitled to a defence even if the case is water tight like it was in the case of Nirbhaya... 

Shampa Sadhya wrote:

@vijay

By the way I am Shampa Sadhya and not Sandhya. My opinion is that if the lawyers know that the person is a hardcore criminal then they must refuse to fight their case. Well, as you or many other has explained in this thread even I too know the rule that every client must get a lawyer but I am not thinking on legal terms rather on social responsibility. You said if lawyers take my advice then many innocents will be punished but I said the lawyers must learn to refuse the criminals because they can make out who is guilty as the clients are supposed to keep no secrets from their lawyers.

Your sentiments can be easily understood, when something like the Nirbhaya case happens, we all feel the same but like each profession, the lawyers too have an obligation. Just like the doctors are obligated by the ethics and morality of their profession to treat each and every patient equally and fairly, so is the judicial system obligated to treat each person, be it a known criminal or a mere suspect to consider him innocent until proven guilty. And for that matter, the lawyers who are bound to their profession the day they don their silks, cannot refuse any person a chance to a fair trial. so we really cannot blame them for taking up such cases. What we need to abhor are the lawyers who fabricate damaging lies to destroy someone's life on behalf of their clients.

A very good account on the Moral code of Lawyers.In fact all professions have moral codes to be adhered to. But there are exceptions too.Offenders find the loop holes in the moral code and utilize them for their advantage.

For example, i can quote a case, wherein the Law minister of Delhi was found guilty of tampering the evidence.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Somnath-Bharti-was-indicted-for-tampering-with-proof/articleshow/28765005.cms

 

Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:

Shampa Sadhya wrote:

@vijay

By the way I am Shampa Sadhya and not Sandhya. My opinion is that if the lawyers know that the person is a hardcore criminal then they must refuse to fight their case. Well, as you or many other has explained in this thread even I too know the rule that every client must get a lawyer but I am not thinking on legal terms rather on social responsibility. You said if lawyers take my advice then many innocents will be punished but I said the lawyers must learn to refuse the criminals because they can make out who is guilty as the clients are supposed to keep no secrets from their lawyers.

Your sentiments can be easily understood, when something like the Nirbhaya case happens, we all feel the same but like each profession, the lawyers too have an obligation. Just like the doctors are obligated by the ethics and morality of their profession to treat each and every patient equally and fairly, so is the judicial system obligated to treat each person, be it a known criminal or a mere suspect to consider him innocent until proven guilty. And for that matter, the lawyers who are bound to their profession the day they don their silks, cannot refuse any person a chance to a fair trial. so we really cannot blame them for taking up such cases. What we need to abhor are the lawyers who fabricate damaging lies to destroy someone's life on behalf of their clients.

Every case makes people cry for justice against the offender .But we have to remember that there may be false allegations or the person caught may have an accomplice who too needs to be brought in and this can happen only when there is a good legal system which includes defence as well. In our eagerness to punish someone we have to make sure that the right person is caught and not an innocent person just because he happens to be there at the crime scene or some supposedly incriminating evidence has been collected. Lawyers are as good or bad as any other profession in our country and if there is a chance to make some fast buck and the same goes for judges too , I am sure a few of them will jump at the chance but not all would do that !

Lawyers are not the only people who lack moral values. Even the Politicians are in the list.Here is an example.

Delhi Law minister Somnath Bharti facing prosecution. No wonder if Judges too join the Band wagon.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Somnath-Bharti-was-indicted-for-tampering-with-proof/articleshow/28765005.cms