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

Morality is not just restricted to a particular profession or a particular section of the Society. Otherwise a nation becomes a Nation of Decadent nation.

 

@Chinmoy : Sorry if you feel I got you wrong. That was not the intention. I am not able to recall any trial where the accused has accepted guilt in a court and that is the end of the trial. Human nature being what it is rarely anyone will agree to his guilt taking the chance that he may escape free. 

@Vijay James Earl Ray,the killer of Martin Luther King did plead guilty and so did Godse by owning up the murder of Gandhi.In the USA "plea bargaining" decides most of the criminal cases which is also accepted in majority of European countries and after much hesitation and intense deliberations India too has warmed up to it by introducing this concept in our Cr. PC.It is true that it rare in human to be repenting but the prospect of lesser punishment would force many accused to resort to plea bargaining and help decongesting thousands of criminal cases which clog Indian courts today.The new chapter XXIA in the Cr. PC,I believe,is just a small beginning.

Iwas talking un the Indian condition and am happy that a plea bargaining system has been introduced in India also. If t helps in decongesting it is a good but still the services of lawyers on both sides will be needed.

@chinmoymukherjee

Thank you very much for all the input on Indian legal system regarding Cr. PC.

In fact the debate and sharing of information between two obviously every intelligent members  Chinmoy and Vijay was very interesting and informative. It is good to have such discussions here every now and then..

And they really shared their knowledge  with the members. Especially, Plea bargain, about which I never had an idea.

@Usha

I never thought that I was intelligent but when one is in the intelligent of such intelligent ladies, you know....

chinmoymukherjee wrote:

@Usha

I never thought that I was intelligent but when one is in the intelligent of such intelligent ladies, you know....

LOL...it really was lovely going through your various posts..

rambabu wrote:

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.

 

Simply, instead of prosecution, defence counsel has been mentioned. Just correct this much and answer is clear. The question is what happens if proseution cannot prove that accused is guilty. Just the accused will be acquitted. He will be even given benefit of doubtif there is no convincing evidence.  

 

I

 

 

 

 

 

 

I started this discussion basically as a lay person. I thought only on moral ground and set up a discussion which led to such a wonderful exchange of opinions. It came up with 'plea bargaining' which is extremely new to me. Even the name of the killer of Martin Luther King and his comparison with Godse made this topic quite enriching. I must thank each and everyone for all the inputs.  

That's the charm in Forums, Forums are the confluence of different people. A stage, where different people enlighten the members with their intellect and erudition and spice up these Forums which I call them as Treasure chests of knowledge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And we should take into account the criminals which agree to support prosecution in proving other accused guilty by providing leads on condtion that they will either be acquitted or punished symbolically. 

I will lock this thread at this point as everyone seems to agree this discussion was a great success.