James5

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or to email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

I’m writing an essay for Legal Ethics on the ethical obligations of lawyers when their client admits to them their guilt. In the process of my research I came across this fantastic quote from Babara Babcock back in 1983.

From lawyers of impeccable professional integrity to those with whom we might be embarrassed to share a profession, all reiterate that innocence or guilt is of no real concern in their daily work. In their trial stories, they usually say nothing at all about the subject. On the general issue, they say it is far easier to defend the guilty because the defense lawyer always wins. If the defendant is acquitted, the lawyer has worked a minor miracle; if convicted, the correct result was reached. Most defense lawyers have reached a state of reasonable doubt in their own minds by the time of trial. Those rare trials of a defendant whom the lawyer truly believes to be innocent, as compared to one about whom she has a reasonable doubt, are grueling and frightening experiences, in which the usual will to win is elevated to a desperate desire to succeed.

I don’t think I have what it takes to be a criminal defense lawyer, yet I’m really hoping to do work in international humanitarian law at the Special Court for Sierra Leone for example. Why do I find it intuitively easier to think about defending alleged war criminals than I do domestic criminals? Maybe it’s because it’s not likely that an acquittal means they’ll be off committing war crimes again? Maybe I’m less inclined to trust post-conflict justice without a thorough defence? I haven’t thought it through so I’m not quite sure.

It’s an interesting question - is “International Legal Ethics” different from domestic legal ethics? I’d be interested in reading about that.

Popularity: 12% [?]