Bear with me, for a minute. I must state now that what follows is not my opinion. Got it? I am, however, applying a method of logic (maybe Socratic, dunno) to the defense of this question, in which I state a series of arguments, which will follow one after another to form one, “inescapable”, conclusion. And EXCLUSIVELY for the purpose of this question, nothing more.

Now, I’m gonna apply it.

1) The lawyer has an obligation to represent his/her client.
2) And that means to represent the best interests of his/her client.
3) Now, it’s better if people obey the law, not break it.
4) If someone does what is not in their own best interest, it is better if they are shown how to correct their mistakes, not if they are allowed to keep doing them.
5) If a criminal avoids conviction for his crimes, then (s)he’s less likely to learn how to correct his mistakes, not more.
6) Then it is in his/her best interest to be convicted. Even though, like a doctor’s patient, (s)he would rather do what is pleasant than what is painful though necessary.
7) So, if a lawyer wishes to serve the best interest of his/her client, and if (s)he know (s)he is guilty, (s)he should then do everything (s)he can to make sure (s)he is convicted so (s)he can receive the appropriate correction.

I guess, logic aside, that this reasoning warrants a further question: If a person can be determined with absolute certainty, whatever the means, that (s)he is not innocent, but guilty, would the defense lawyers still serve their duty?

Topics: law, justice, lawyer, law enforcement, justice system, interest, personality, breaks, guilt, criminal defense, interests, jurisprudence