LAWYER OR ACCUSED
The Lawyer “My Lord this man is charged with blowing up a bridge and must be punished severely for causing harm and injury.”
The Accused “My Lord, this Lawyer has been defending and successfully securing the release of rapists, murderers, robbers, the corrupt politicians and many other evil persons, knowing of their crimes full well, all in the name of serving his clients. My clients are doctors who benefit from injured travellers, contractors who get the work of repair and reconstruction.. and I have been faithful to them”
“But, My Lord” said the Lawyer, “he has committed sabotage; this is an act of terrorism”
“Sir,” told the Accused, “the learned Lawyer has been subverting truth for most of his career, obstructing justice and denying it to the genuine victims, and thus sabotaging the constitution”
—————————————–
A QUESTION
Are lawyers completely free to defend people they know are guilty? Since when has the law – or at least the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence – exempted him from the obligation to work for truth and to desist from supporting falsehood knowingly?
Can a lawyer be charged if it is proved that he knew he was defending a criminal?
