Ought ethics to stop lawyers from saying things like this?

Dlowan--

I'm not sure who can judge a military lawyer.

I believe civilian lawyers can be judged by their bar associations and professional societies.

You are aware that many child molesters are convinced that the kids--even toddlers and babes in arms--"led them on" and initiated the sexual contact. Some of these creeps insist (in spite of their lawyers' advice) on blaming the kids in open court.

I had an uncle who did a great deal of pro bono work defending the scum of the earth. He was an honorable man who never stretched the truth to obtain an acquittal. He also practiced in a more ethical time.

I have known lawyers who were fired by their clients (frequently non-paying clients) because the lawyers wouldn't bend the truth to guarantee an acquittal.

Personally, I'm an ethical, intelligent human being and and spurious, dishonest courtroom tactics annoy me.

Unfortunately we live in a time when the end excuses the means. I think lawyers can still be disbarred for unprofessional behavior, but the standards for professional behavior are lower than they used to be.

I don't see an ethical problem. Maybe I'm missing something? I agree with fishin' that it's a losing argument.

I've been in situations in the past where I've been a public defender, and haven't been able to pick my clients. Criminal defense is one area of the law where you are expected to be competent. You are expected to be available to be selected by the courts to be appointed to represent indigent criminal defendants, if so selected by the criminal court. This rarely happens anymore, since there are plenty of criminal defense attorneys who are on the list to be appointed by the court. But if you are appointed to represent a defendant, you are expected to provide your client with zealous advocacy in his defense.

However, I do not believe I would have been able to represent the child molester who instructed me to present the defense that the child "initiated" the sexual conduct. That, for me, would have clearly crossed the line.

Why is this argument so surprising? Rush Limbaugh compared the torture at Abu Ghraib to a fraternity hazing ritual:

"Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You [ever] heard of need to blow some steam off?"

Similarly, Donald Rumsfeld compared forcing inmates to stand for long periods of time to his own habit of standing at his desk:

Rumsfeld also approved placing detainees in "stress positions," such as standing for up to 4 hours, though he apparently found this approach unimpressive. Rumsfeld, who works at a stand-up desk, scrawled on the memo, "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to four hours?

Source.

So, in other words, something that could be torture but that looks like an everyday activity must be more like that everyday activity than torture. It stands to reason, then, that stacking people into a human pyramid looks like fun, so it must be fun.

Ticomaya wrote:

I don't see an ethical problem. Maybe I'm missing something? I agree with fishin' that it's a losing argument.

I've been in situations in the past where I've been a public defender, and haven't been able to pick my clients. Criminal defense is one area of the law where you are expected to be competent. You are expected to be available to be selected by the courts to be appointed to represent indigent criminal defendants, if so selected by the criminal court. This rarely happens anymore, since there are plenty of criminal defense attorneys who are on the list to be appointed by the court. But if you are appointed to represent a defendant, you are expected to provide your client with zealous advocacy in his defense.

However, I do not believe I would have been able to represent the child molester who instructed me to present the defense that the child "initiated" the sexual conduct. That, for me, would have clearly crossed the line.

Very interesting.

Would your personal ethics give ou a problem withthe "cheerleading" defence?

Can you delineate for me how one crosses the line,and one stays within it in your view?

Er - I am assuming that the child molester one crossed your professional ethics boundary.

....as Tico the Tin Man delights in saying, I am constantly befuddled in the company of such illustrious folks.....say I wonder how many years of high school you need in the heartland to get one o them lawyerin degrees?