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.