Posted on 12/06/2008 7:25:28 PM PST by MyTwoCopperCoins
Several criminal lawyers in Mumbai have refused to take up the case of Mohammad Ajmal Amin Iman alias Kasab, the sole man arrested in connection with last week's terrorist carnage here, citing ethical constraints.
A resolution was passed unanimously by the Bombay Metropolitan Magistrate Court's Bar Association, which has more than 1,000 members, saying that none of its members will defend any of the accused of the terror attacks.
Kasab was arrested on November 26, the day the terrorists struck at different locations in Mumbai.
Senior criminal lawyer Majeed Memon said, "There are certain ethical restrains which may stop a conscientious lawyer from defending certain accused persons. When a lawyer is aware that the accused was in fact caught red handed committing an extremely serious offence, there is no question of us appearing in this case."
Advocate Mubin Solkar, appearing for accused in the 7/11 Mumbai serial train blasts case and the recent Indian Mujahideen [Images] case, agreed with Memon and said, "Although it is unconstitutional to refuse legal aid to any accused, we have seen with our own eyes the arrested terrorist shooting at innocent people. Aiding him means burning our own fingers."
Criminal lawyer Shahid Azmi pointed out that no bar association can pass such a resolution asking lawyers not to take up a particular case and that it is up to the sole discretion of the lawyer whether or not to defend an accused.
© Copyright 2008 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of PTI content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent.
darn.. lawyers with a conscience. we need more of those here in America.
Exactly what I was thinking.
He’s going to have to get Ramsey Clark.
So when does this Kasab character hit the talk show circuit here in the states? Does he have a myspace page yet?
“There are certain ethical restrains which may stop a conscientious lawyer from defending certain accused persons. When a lawyer is aware that the accused was in fact caught red handed committing an extremely serious offence, there is no question of us appearing in this case.”
How deliciously un-American! Can you imagine a lawyer in the U.S. saying something like that? Big fat reputations and big fat fees can be made defending the guilty (”Well, just because someone’s guilty of murder doesn’t mean he doesn’t have rights...”).
Wow. Attorneys with the integrity to refuse to defend the obviously guilty. Clearly they come from a very different culture.
Wasn't that what Nuremberg was all about? Establishing the historical record and reason the for subsequent sentences?
I wonder: Is it Indian ethics, fear of defending the extremely unpopular, or something else driving these rejections?
Advocate Mubin Solkar, appearing for accused in the 7/11 Mumbai serial train blasts case and the recent Indian Mujahideen [Images] case, agreed with Memon and said, "Although it is unconstitutional to refuse legal aid to any accused, we have seen with our own eyes the arrested terrorist shooting at innocent people. Aiding him means burning our own fingers."
no worries. there’s a boatload of American lawyers who’ll do it.
I’ll defend him, if he pays me up front, in cash...I’ll even attend his execution, for an additional fee...
Hey, how come we have lots of scummy defense laywers who love to get killers off on technicalities? I bet one of the ACLU lawyers will step up and defend this person, who obviously was the victim of a bad childhood and cannot be blamed for what he has done.
The utter idiocy of the world’s best justice system is exposed right there in the Third World country. I mean there are many, even here, who insist that O.J. did not commit the murders, because, because, hold your breath, because he was judged “NOT GUILTY” by a “jury of his peers”. We have a lot to learn from the Indians.
Kurukshetra War - Kali Yuga ping...
To be added to or removed from this ping list, please FReepmail Sir Francis Dashwood.
If I put the keyword Kaliyuga will it help you find the articles I find?
“Aiding him means burning our own fingers.”
Well said.
Liberal thinking gone mad....spend gobs of tax payer money on a “proper” trial of a criminal whose crime was witnessed by 10,000+ witnesses. Highly paid judge, court appointed lawyers, bailiffs, court clerks, court house police protection & upkeep, etc etc all for “feel good” liberals?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.