[Stone Mountain]

I disagree. I think it shows that many lawyers, as individuals, are willing to be accessories to crimes.

In our system of justice, even a guilty man is entitled to representation. If a lawyer who would defend this man to the best of his abilities is considered an accomplice, then our system of justice fails. This is why I said it betrays a lack of understanding of our system. When an adversarial system is used to determine guilt, there must be advocates on each side willing to argue for their side. Sure it's an imperfect system, but it's better than just about anything else. Many would disagree with that, but I believe that protecting the rights of the innocent take precedence over punishing the guilty.

[onedoug]

"...protecting the rights of the innocent take precedence over punishing the guilty.

Then no one goes over.

[cinFLA]

In our system of justice, even a guilty man is entitled to representation. If a lawyer who would defend this man to the best of his abilities is considered an accomplice, then our system of justice fails. This is why I said it betrays a lack of understanding of our system. When an adversarial system is used to determine guilt, there must be advocates on each side willing to argue for their side.

So it is ethical to argue your client is innocent when you know he is guilty? That is the reason most clients do not go on the stand; it submits the client and lawyer to perjury charges.

[danmar]

but I believe that protecting the rights of the innocent take precedence over punishing the guilty.

...and this is exactly the point.Protecting the criminals while the victims get the shaft. This is one fine justice system we have in place.

[Thommas]

Your answer at post# 30 implies the absolute fact of the matter - our Justice system HAS FAILED!