[Stone Mountain]

You're missing the whole point, that being, the morality is assualted when the lawer his client is guilty, and uses subvversion to gain his/her freedom. The idea is, this isn't justice, it's a perversion of justice.

This is begging the question. One is innocent until proved guilty. If the system is not able to prove someone is guilty, then he is innocent.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "subversion." In an adversarial system, any lawyer who doesn't use all of the tools at his disposal to defend his client is guilty of malpractice. If a lawyer sees a legal way to advocate for his client, he MUST do so.

[knuthom]

In an adversarial system, any lawyer who doesn't use all of the tools at his disposal to defend his client is guilty of malpractice. If a lawyer sees a legal way to advocate for his client, he MUST do so.

Does that include saying things he knows are not true? Can a defense lawyer be charged with anything for lying in the courtroom?

[DugwayDuke]

"In an adversarial system, any lawyer who doesn't use all of the tools at his disposal to defend his client is guilty of malpractice."

Really? Let me pose a hypothetical civil case. Suppose your client is the CEO of a major firm accused of knowingly distributing defective products. You know the opposing side will present a witness who will testify that, while working for the company, saw a memo admiting the defects in the product. Now, you also know this witness has a history of mental disorders that may affect her memory. You also know she is telling the truth. (Yes, you really do know. Remember this is hypothetical.) Do you use this mental history to discredit her testimony? If not, are you guilty of malpractice?

[blackbart.223]

"If the system is not able to prove someone is guilty, then he is innocent."

Not quite. If a jury finds a defendant not guilty it's because the prosocuter didn't present evidence suffecient to warrant a guilty verdict. A jury is asked to declare a verdict of guilty or not guilty. Innocent doesn't come into the picture.

[cinFLA]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "subversion." In an adversarial system, any lawyer who doesn't use all of the tools at his disposal to defend his client is guilty of malpractice. If a lawyer sees a legal way to advocate for his client, he MUST do so.

Have you never heard of ethics? By the above, I presume you think DA's should subvert the truth in order to free the scum of the earth including the women who drowned her two children and then claimed she was "hexed"!