I was reading Punzi’s blog and I noticed he had the lawyers oath posted on the side:
The Lawyer’s Oath
I, having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in the Philippines, do solemnly swear that I recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
There’s something that I couldn’t get my head around.
I highlighted in bold that which I couldn’t come to terms with.
What if, you’re a criminal lawyer… and what if you’re hired to defend a criminal you know is guilty? Why do these people still feel the obligation to represent them.
Of course I guess the answer here is that they simply shouldn’t right? And that they have the choice to decline representing the said criminal. Fair enough.
But what if a guilty person was arrested, and can’t afford a lawyer, one will be provided right? This suggests the fact that regardless of the guilt, there will always be a legitimate right to represent both sides in court. Or does it mean that the lawyer assigned also has the option to decline representation? So technically in a perfect world, if you’re guilty, there can be a situation that you could forego the whole court process wether you like it or not… if you’re guilty of course.
So where does the whole “Innocent until proven guilty” come in? I mean lets imagine for now that there weren’t any money grubbing lawyers who would defend anyone who could afford them. By their oath, there could actually be a situation where both sides just say “let’s just hang this bastard since he’s obviously guilty” Even if the “guilty” person claims he’s innocent (assuming he’s lying of course). While that would be a super world to be in, it kinda contradicts the whole justice system. Yet the current justice system seems to contradict itself as well.
Also, I watched an episode of CSI wherein they had 2 confessions to a murder. One guy (a brother) already confessed to the murder… then the sister came up to the stand and said that she killed the victim. My question is if there was already a confession from the brother, then why bother with the court process at all? If someone said that he had killed this guy, with sound mind. Then the representing lawyer would be going against his/her oath if they continued to represent him as “innocent” right? (which is what was happening in that episode)
And the fact that the sister now said that she killed the victim. Obviously one of them was trying to defend the other… but ultimately that’s being an accomplice to some degree right? Why bother trying to find out who was the real innocent person when they both should be locked up for being accomplices.
If I were the judge, I’d say they were making a mockery out of my court, and just sentence them both right there and then.
I am in no means a laywyer (yet)…
law students are actually made to memorize that oath, and threatened to be called to recite it at any time during class, even if it is no longer the lesson at hand.. not that reciting it ever translates to actually practicing it.
as for the highlighted section, well, we can take for example a lawyer who knowingly puts his client up on the stand to lie. Not only is this unethical, it is also subject to further action, ie perjury for one who lied, and corresponding sanctions for counsel (I think it’s disbarment, but i’m not sure, next year pa namin aaralin to). In defending clients, lawyers are expected to do everything within their power, guided of course by ethics and morality, or at least that’s how i construe it to be.
As for representation, lawyers have the option to rescind from cases. In extreme cases where accused cannot find adequate counsel whether because of monetary reasons or on principle, one will be provided for him. In the states, I think it’s within the Miranda rights (the thing that the cops tell you when they arrest someone), and as such, an attorney from the public defender’s office, or in big cases, a private lawyer might be called in to defend your case for you. I’m not sure how this works though, I just saw it on an episode of boston legal. Here in the philippines, we have the Public Attorney’s office. These 2 offices however, like many other government offices, are overworked and underpaid.
as for the innocent until proven guilty reasoning, this will not happen. The spanish term for lawyer is Abogado, likewise, the french term is avocat (also same for the danish i think) (pardon my spelling, i am not well versed in these). A closer translation of these terms in english would be advocate, which in the case at hand, i believe is the function of the attorney for the defense. To defend a guilty cliet does not mean to outright lie , he may use other means like a plea bargain, settlement in civil actions, or whatever. Whatever it is, in a perfect world, he is to defend his client, while still retaining his moral character.
As for the csi case, a universal principle of law is commensurate punishment for the crime committed. The first problem that presents itself here is to whom do you give what punishment? true enough that they’re all probably guilty of something, but what, and what is the commensurate punishment for such? furthermore, a judge, or jury for that matter, cannot just rule you to be an accessory to murder even if you are, if you were not charged, and subsequently tried as such. it’s alot of red tape, but it’s the same red tape that ensures that the innocent ones do not unreasonably just get thrown in jail.
Now the messy part.. to bring it to the specifics of the case, you also need to look if the lawyer knew what the sister was going to say before she put her on the stand. Assuming that it was the defense attorney who put the sister on the stand, the lawyer would still be within his oath (barely) if he didn’t know what the sister was going to say before putting her on the stand. This of course is rarely the case but is as such extremely difficult to prove otherwise. While the tactic is a pretty good one, establishing reasonable doubt as to who really killed the victim, it is quite an unethical and immoral, even if it is not necessarily an illegal one.
disclaimer: i am by no means an expert in law, and am just calling things as to how i understand them to be.