Lawyers have no morality
-
They help to defend the accused even though if they know he is guilty just for the sake of money.
-
ok, next.
-
Both side ie the prosecution and defence will present their case before the judge. In my opinion, the defence did nothing wrong to represent the accused as you never know whether they are other external circumstances resulting in the crime being committed. Ie. Mitigating factors.
-
In the first place, the defendant may not even be guilty. Just that the regime we have presumes one to be guilty until proven innocent, when it should be the other way around.
-
"i'm a lawyer.. i'm not a judge.. it's up to the judge to decide whether my client's guilty.. me? i'll defend him to the best of my capability.."
heard it from a lawyer during a talk i attended.. -
Even so, the judge sides with the prosecutors 99% of the time. What do you expect, since both belong to the same farked-up regime.Originally posted by ^HaRu^:i'm a lawyer.. i'm not a judge.. it's up to the judge to decide whether my client's guilty.. me? i'll defend him to the best of my capability..
-
Originally posted by iveco:In the first place, the defendant may not even be guilty. Just that the regime we have presumes one to be guilty until proven innocent, when it should be the other way around.
The above are not fair statements.Originally posted by iveco:Even so, the judge sides with the prosecutors 99% of the time. What do you expect, since both belong to the same farked-up regime.
The prosection will not charge a person unless sufficient evidence are gathered. So that is why people always tend to have the impression that the judge favour the PP side.
The judge is neutral in this sense.
It is now up to two side to support and debate their arguments.
To my knowledge, even if you know your client is gulity before trial, as a defence lawyer, you are bound by the profession code. Hence, you have to defence him as you never know he might have other mitigating factors that resulted in the crime. In this case, let the PP prove its case. The judge will evaluate both side and decide the outcome. -
Trust me, sometimes the only sane people at a trial are the jurists, but we have none of them in Singapore.Originally posted by TooFree:The above are not fair statements.
The prosection will not charge a person unless sufficient evidence are gathered. So that is why people always tend to have the impression that the judge favour the PP side.
The judge is neutral in this sense.
It is now up to two side to support and debate their arguments.
To my knowledge, even if you know your client is gulity before trial, as a defence lawyer, you are bound by the profession code. Hence, you have to defence him as you never know he might have other mitigating factors that resulted in the crime. In this case, let the PP prove its case. The judge will evaluate both side and decide the outcome. -
I have read it somewhere, where the best system so far is where the trial is preside by 3 judges. So depending on the severity of the case, 1 judge is usually sufficient.Originally posted by iveco:Trust me, sometimes the only sane people at a trial are the jurists, but we have none of them in Singapore.
Also, research has shown that there are flaws in the jury system as compare to judge-preside trial.
2 cents. -
If morality was involved, the accused will never have a fighting chance, why bother with a trial in the first place?Originally posted by chronicles:They help to defend the accused even though if they know he is guilty just for the sake of money.
-
true...but what makes evidence?what could be evidence for the prosecution might not be what is is protrayed to be.Originally posted by TooFree:The prosection will not charge a person unless sufficient evidence are gathered.
That's the ideal case...and we all know that the judges are all human...have feelings and so on...so I think its pretty difficult to be neutral.
The judge is neutral in this sense.
Come to think of it...its pretty scary to have ur fate based on just one person's decision...dun U think so? -
To add on, the prosecutor's job should be to build a case against the defendant from scratch. This is the standard practice in the civilised Western world, but not in Singapore. Back home, the defendant enters a trial with a name to clear. Also, God knows whether he had been tortured into making a false confession or not.
-
For example, you accidently killed someone.
You can be charged with murder or manslaughter. Murder can be death sentence. Manslaughter have a lighter sentence.
What would you rather have? The lighter sentence, of course. And who's gonna help you achieve that?
The lawyer who defends you! -
In some places, there is the added benefit of the jury.Originally posted by redstone:For example, you accidently killed someone.
You can be charged with murder or manslaughter. Murder can be death sentence. Manslaughter have a lighter sentence.
What would you rather have? The lighter sentence, of course. And who's gonna help you achieve that?
The lawyer who defends you! -
The accused will never have a fighting chance, let's just throw him into jail, no need a trial anyway.
-
This is as good as saying it is justified to put people away on mere suspicion alone. Have you been watching too much Minority Report?Originally posted by ditzy:The accused will never have a fighting chance, let's just throw him into jail, no need a trial anyway. -
In SG, you are gulity till proven innocent...
So you have to fight to be innocent esp if you are -
tts why it does not matter who right who wrong.....
but which side got a better lawyer.....
even it's some obvious case, the accused has the right to defend....
for lighter sentence...... -
What if no one wants to help you because their morality takes over them?Originally posted by sbst275:In SG, you are gulity till proven innocent...
So you have to fight to be innocent esp if you are -
so what's new ? ....
-
A lawyer with morality will end up as a beggar! Might as well change job, like my frenz, hates to defend for well-deserved jailed bast*rd, in the end change job! Lawyers is LPPL wan... its a choice of money or morality.
-
A lawyer with morality will take on a case pro bono. But he must be well-established, with enough savings to live on.Originally posted by BlUe G@rF|eLd:A lawyer with morality will end up as a beggar! Might as well change job, like my frenz, hates to defend for well-deserved jailed bast*rd, in the end change job! Lawyers is LPPL wan... its a choice of money or morality. -
A lawyer should know what to expect after taking up the job as one, if they don't know or aren't prepared for the job ahead, why be one to start with?
-
At the very beginning, when they enter the lawyer world, they hve to struggle with many nonsensical case 1st to build their repu up wan.. Most kant pass tat stage. To uphold justice? Or to lose a job?Originally posted by iveco:A lawyer with morality will take on a case pro bono. But he must be well-established, with enough savings to live on. -
Then what does it take to get him well-established and make enough moola?Originally posted by iveco:A lawyer with morality will take on a case pro bono. But he must be well-established, with enough savings to live on.