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

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.

 

I dont understand why a lawyer should nt take the cases of a hard core or whatever criminal since it is his profession ? Same way can a doctor refuse to treat a criminal or a corrupt politician who too is a criminal?

Agreed.But a professional in any discipline has to abide by the ethical values. For example Hippocrates considered as the Father of Medicine laid out a set of Moral values to be followed by all physicians in the world. It is known as " Hippocratic Oath ".

The gist of the Oath is

 to treat the ill to the best of one's ability, to preserve a patient's privacy, to teach the secrets of medicine to the next generation, and so on

How far it is followed or flouted you know.

Whether followed or flouted comes later, the first concern is towards your own ethics towards your profession which clearly says that you have to give a fair deal to everyone , whether they are criminals or not is to be decided by the court rather than making up your mind before the verdict !

OK. Agreed.

@Shampa I do perfectly understand your perspective and take on the issue.I did say earlier that conceptual difference does exist but not to its

mutual exclusiveness.After all our laws are manifestations of our societal moral obligations.Now coming to the point of a lawyer's upholding of the priniciple of equality.It is illogical to stretch it to absurd limits.There is a legal maxim that none should allowed to pollute the sacred fountain of justice.A lawyer's duty to his or her duty can not override that of his or her one to the society.The whole problem  erupts when a client seeks justice for unjust causes and an immoral lawyer aids and abets with his formidable mastery of law.My only question is: how many legal luminaries who are so hyperactive in saving hard-core criminals spare even a split-second's thought over the plight of thousands of poor,innocent undertrials who have been rotting and cursing for an entire life wondering aloud as to what wrongs they have done!!!

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.

The simple point is that there can be no court proceedings if the accused does not get opportunity to defend himself. If no lawyer defends him, there will be no proceeding and he will have to be acquitted. The court cannot decide only on hearing prosection. 

@ Shampa Sadhya, Sorry I spelt your name wrongly. In the eyes of the law all accused are innocent till proved guilty. Even a terrorist who is caught red handed is provided legal assistance to put forward his point as the law does not want to punish an innocent even if a guilty may walk free. Lawyers are not to be blamed. They are doing their duty and earning their livelihood.

rambabu wrote:

There are such cases, where lawyers did not agree to defend the criminals. But how many such lawyers are there?

There were some cases like 'Nithari murders' in U.P. where lawyers refused to argue for the accused. But this is  sentimental and not professional attitude. a lawyer must accept every assignment.  He can defend his client best way not necessarily by misrepresenting. Actually, it is the prosecution that will prove that the accused is guilty. The accused's lawyer is  defence counsel whose job is just to cross examine the witness of the prosecution and find holes in the prosecution case. He will work for proving the client not guilty or getting him benefit of doubt or lighter punishment.  In fact, there can be no court proceedings unless the accused gets opportunity to defend himself. So it is necessary in interest of administration of justice that accused gets defence counsel- whatever be his nature of crime. 

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

rambabu wrote:

There are such cases, where lawyers did not agree to defend the criminals. But how many such lawyers are there?

There were some cases like 'Nithari murders' in U.P. where lawyers refused to argue for the accused. But this is  sentimental and not professional attitude. a lawyer must accept every assignment.  He can defend his client best way not necessarily by misrepresenting. Actually, it is the prosecution that will prove that the accused is guilty. The accused's lawyer is  defence counsel whose job is just to cross examine the witness of the prosecution and find holes in the prosecution case. He will work for proving the client not guilty or getting him benefit of doubt or lighter punishment.  In fact, there can be no court proceedings unless the accused gets opportunity to defend himself. So it is necessary in interest of administration of justice that accused gets defence counsel- whatever be his nature of crime. 

OK. what happens if the defense council fails to prove the guilt of the accused, who was found to be committing a murder in the broad day light in the presence of onlookers, and he buys them with his money power ?

 

rambabu wrote:

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

rambabu wrote:

There are such cases, where lawyers did not agree to defend the criminals. But how many such lawyers are there?

There were some cases like 'Nithari murders' in U.P. where lawyers refused to argue for the accused. But this is  sentimental and not professional attitude. a lawyer must accept every assignment.  He can defend his client best way not necessarily by misrepresenting. Actually, it is the prosecution that will prove that the accused is guilty. The accused's lawyer is  defence counsel whose job is just to cross examine the witness of the prosecution and find holes in the prosecution case. He will work for proving the client not guilty or getting him benefit of doubt or lighter punishment.  In fact, there can be no court proceedings unless the accused gets opportunity to defend himself. So it is necessary in interest of administration of justice that accused gets defence counsel- whatever be his nature of crime. 

OK. what happens if the defense council fails to prove the guilt of the accused, who was found to be committing a murder in the broad day light in the presence of onlookers, and he buys them with his money power ?

 Your question is technically wrong! It's not the duty of defense council to prove the accused guilty. However if there is no witness then as they say the justice dends on proofs.

 

suni51 wrote:

rambabu wrote:

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

rambabu wrote:

There are such cases, where lawyers did not agree to defend the criminals. But how many such lawyers are there?

There were some cases like 'Nithari murders' in U.P. where lawyers refused to argue for the accused. But this is  sentimental and not professional attitude. a lawyer must accept every assignment.  He can defend his client best way not necessarily by misrepresenting. Actually, it is the prosecution that will prove that the accused is guilty. The accused's lawyer is  defence counsel whose job is just to cross examine the witness of the prosecution and find holes in the prosecution case. He will work for proving the client not guilty or getting him benefit of doubt or lighter punishment.  In fact, there can be no court proceedings unless the accused gets opportunity to defend himself. So it is necessary in interest of administration of justice that accused gets defence counsel- whatever be his nature of crime. 

OK. what happens if the defense council fails to prove the guilt of the accused, who was found to be committing a murder in the broad day light in the presence of onlookers, and he buys them with his money power ?

 Your question is technically wrong! It's not the duty of defense council to prove the accused guilty. However if there is no witness then as they say the justice dends on proofs.

 

I had a doubt. And it has been cleared now/

 

 

rambabu wrote:

suni51 wrote:

rambabu wrote:

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

rambabu wrote:

There are such cases, where lawyers did not agree to defend the criminals. But how many such lawyers are there?

There were some cases like 'Nithari murders' in U.P. where lawyers refused to argue for the accused. But this is  sentimental and not professional attitude. a lawyer must accept every assignment.  He can defend his client best way not necessarily by misrepresenting. Actually, it is the prosecution that will prove that the accused is guilty. The accused's lawyer is  defence counsel whose job is just to cross examine the witness of the prosecution and find holes in the prosecution case. He will work for proving the client not guilty or getting him benefit of doubt or lighter punishment.  In fact, there can be no court proceedings unless the accused gets opportunity to defend himself. So it is necessary in interest of administration of justice that accused gets defence counsel- whatever be his nature of crime. 

OK. what happens if the defense council fails to prove the guilt of the accused, who was found to be committing a murder in the broad day light in the presence of onlookers, and he buys them with his money power ?

 Your question is technically wrong! It's not the duty of defense council to prove the accused guilty. However if there is no witness then as they say the justice dends on proofs.

 

I had a doubt. And it has been cleared now/

 

I am surprised to note that you were in doubt whether defense council tries to prove his client guilty or tries to save him!

 

 

 

suni51 wrote:

rambabu wrote:

suni51 wrote:

rambabu wrote:

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

rambabu wrote:

There are such cases, where lawyers did not agree to defend the criminals. But how many such lawyers are there?

There were some cases like 'Nithari murders' in U.P. where lawyers refused to argue for the accused. But this is  sentimental and not professional attitude. a lawyer must accept every assignment.  He can defend his client best way not necessarily by misrepresenting. Actually, it is the prosecution that will prove that the accused is guilty. The accused's lawyer is  defence counsel whose job is just to cross examine the witness of the prosecution and find holes in the prosecution case. He will work for proving the client not guilty or getting him benefit of doubt or lighter punishment.  In fact, there can be no court proceedings unless the accused gets opportunity to defend himself. So it is necessary in interest of administration of justice that accused gets defence counsel- whatever be his nature of crime. 

OK. what happens if the defense council fails to prove the guilt of the accused, who was found to be committing a murder in the broad day light in the presence of onlookers, and he buys them with his money power ?

 Your question is technically wrong! It's not the duty of defense council to prove the accused guilty. However if there is no witness then as they say the justice dends on proofs.

 

I had a doubt. And it has been cleared now/

 

I am surprised to note that you were in doubt whether defense council tries to prove his client guilty or tries to save him!

Such doubts are bound to occur in a person like me who has scanty knowledge about  a particular subject and with  confidence, that knowledgeable people can cover  me. After all the spirit of these forums are to learn from the knowledgeable and ever willing members to lend their knowledge.

 

I

 

 

 

 

I quite fail to see how does refusal on the part of a morally scrupulous lawyer or a band of them could affect the legal proceedings against an accused person. It is not a must to go for the services of a lawyer and courts do grant permission to an accused to plead for oneself. Besides there is provision for legal aid for those who can not afford the services of a lawyer. The instances of courts appointing amicus curiae are too common and many to assist the court in such cased. From my own personal knowledge I know of so many cases where a few lawyers who initially accepted briefs of shady cases just to recuse themselves on moral grounds subsequently. Anyway we seem to be straying a bit from the relevant theme that Shampa's pointed question has raised. However obdurately we theorize, it can not hide the glaring fact in India that justice is bought with the greed of a few lawyers. It could be a subject matter for research that there are fewer convictions of high-profile case because of involvement of these so-called legal eagles who would go to any length to save their clients for material considerations. What distresses me is the fact that some leading lights in this business are more prone to throwing all moral aspects into the air than their less exalted conterparts in lower courts. Recently a bank manager of PSU bank committed a gory murder of his illicit lover and her little child.After committing this heinous act he chopped their bodies into pieces, bought a few jumbo suitcases to pack them, finally to drop them into the Hooghly river. He was caught by the fellow boat- passengers who handed them over to the police. The entire body of lawyers of Serampore court rose against this out moral revulsion and decided not to appear for him. Did they commit anything wrong? The said bank manager is aged above fifty and married with two college-going son and daughter and had an impeccable record as a gentleman in the locality! 

I quite fail to see how does refusal on the part of a morally scrupulous lawyer or a band of them could affect the legal proceedings against an accused person. It is not a must to go for the services of a lawyer and courts do grant permission to an accused to plead for oneself. Besides there is provision for legal aid for those who can not afford the services of a lawyer. The instances of courts appointing amicus curiae are too common and many to assist the court in such cased. From my own personal knowledge I know of so many cases where a few lawyers who initially accepted briefs of shady cases just to recuse themselves on moral grounds subsequently. Anyway we seem to be straying a bit from the relevant theme that Shampa's pointed question has raised. However obdurately we theorize, it can not hide the glaring fact in India that justice is bought with the greed of a few lawyers. It could be a subject matter for research that there are fewer convictions of high-profile case because of involvement of these so-called legal eagles who would go to any length to save their clients for material considerations. What distresses me is the fact that some leading lights in this business are more prone to throwing all moral aspects into the air than their less exalted conterparts in lower courts. Recently a bank manager of PSU bank committed a gory murder of his illicit lover and her little child.After committing this heinous act he chopped their bodies into pieces, bought a few jumbo suitcases to pack them, finally to drop them into the Hooghly river. He was caught by the fellow boat- passengers who handed them over to the police. The entire body of lawyers of Serampore court rose against this out moral revulsion and decided not to appear for him. Did they commit anything wrong? The said bank manager is aged above fifty and married with two college-going son and daughter and had an impeccable record as a gentleman in the locality! 

In the case cited by@Chinmoy the Serampore lawyers have refused to appear for the SBI manager. Fine. So the prosecution will present its case and their charges will go unchallenged whether right or wrong. Can the judge blindly believe the prosecution in absence of a defence lawyer. The judge needs to be convinced that evidence is foolproof and this can happen only when both side lawyers are present. By Shampa's logic every time a person is charged with a charge no lawyer should come forward to defend him. Then why have lawyers at all?

@Vijay

I have already hinted at the possible alternative mechanisms. I do not know of a single case of such cases going unchallenged.The judge intervenes in an appropriate manner by choosing the right mechanism. The case I have cited is a watertight one and if the accused pleads guilty even it may not come up for trial.

I am not able to understand what is meant by stating that if the accused pleads guilty even it may not come up for trial. It is a dangerous statement. Catch anyone and make him accept guilt and then no trial. Indian justice does not work this way. Admission of guilt to police is not admissible in court. Prosecution have to prove it. You and Shampa are mixing up your desire that lawyers should not defend obvious criminals because of moral issue. Bur justice is blind and sentence can be delivered after evidence is provided and guilt proved. Serampore person will also go on trial.

@Vijay

You seem to have got me completely wrong by going beyond what my views warranted.Even an impatient,perfunctory read of my posts won't lead one to give such a weird spin. When did I refer to confessional statements extracted by police under duress as admissible evidence? What is so wrong if an accused pleads guilty to a charge to a judge in a court? What is the problem for an accused to defend himself or herself if no lawyer agrees or opt for one in the legal aid panel? I am not opposed to any lawyer taking any brief but what you sadly glossed over is my main emphasis on the majesty of morality in our conduct which differentiates a biped from a quadruped!!! A

why only legal profession every profession whether it is legal or illegal has some moral responsibility towards his/her countrymen. well i will say that whether anybody is there in the profession or not he/she has some responsibility over the citizen of his/her country or the foreigner who came to his/her country