This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is it MORAL for a smart LAWYER to twist the meaning of words of law to save a CONVICT about whom s/he is sure to be a convict ?
There are lot of discussion on MORALITY here in TED which is necessary and found to be very much thought provocating for the greater benefit of humankind for the establishment of justice fighting all injustice.
There are talks and discussions of morality of scientific development specially biological scinece. Discussions are there about the morality of politicians, media , interantional bodies, NGO etc etc. Was wondering what about the morality of our Judiciary System (not any particular country rather as a whole).
Hopefully Judiciary system is there to fight all injustice and establish the rules of justice (realtive though in respect to time , space , culture etc). Law makers (they are definitely not beyond debate) afters days. months or even years of debate comes up with new law or ammend old for the betterment of society.
What happens while implementing that LAW? Smart, intelligent lawyers all the time find out way to twist or bend the law to save their client , which in many cases they definitely know s/he was a real convict.
Yes from professional stand point those lawyers may be right to do that as they are commited to serve their client best of their capability honsetly.
But what about morality ?
How moral it is for them ?
What is the impact of their victory on the psyche of society as whole on the total justice system?
By doing so smart lawyers become famous and costly earns lot of money. Normal citizen can't afford them, rather a rich convict can , so law start speaking with money.
What are your thoughts about it ?
How can we prevent that implementation of law is not linked with money or power ?
(Well I agree FORGIVENESS is great virtue , but that forgiveness should only go once CONVICT agrees s/he did something wrong then only it can come in place, it's my view though)
Eager to hear your thoughts
Edit : Question edited replacing How with Is , courtesy Helen's post below :)
Closing Statement from Salim Solaiman
Thanks for all the contributors & their valued insight. Well it seemed though what I was proposing in premise as question of Morality , someother things it's more a matter of ethics. That being said it can be easily something is not right in our justice system.
Unanimous comment was that poor and people with out power can't really get justice from our current system. So we need to look for a change for the betterment.
Other point can be concluded that it's actually not a high priority cahllenge that our civilization facing , which is visible from the numbers of contributors contributed here.
Once it goes up the priority list , we defintely will have more discussio. Looking forward for that.
Good day for all. WIsh everyone can get justice from out current justice system.
Salim Solaiman 50+
jeffrey friesen 20+
I can just tell you that unless the system exists to support and succor those who want to behave ethically, then the ethically challenged will rule the day.
In the US, letting those who tortured walk free was a travesty and sent the message that torture is tolerated, no matter what the law says.
jeffrey friesen 20+
Do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. No system is perfect. Once people become involved, the weaknesses inherent in humanity, get layered over the best systems. The only solution is to put the best people you can in oversight and then also make sure that they are watched.
The problems with all criminal lawyers is that they are required to do the best job that they can (provide the best defense) and sometimes there are lawyers who for reasons good or ill, will overstep their ethical bounds.
This should not obviate the ethical code, but rather reinforce the need for it. As my mother used to say when I became perfectionistic, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water."
Thanks for a stimulating conversation.
Salim Solaiman 50+
Thanks for your time and thoughts.
Fully agree what your mom said about perfectionism. I am also not looking for a perfect system , it's really difficult in a system when there are so many different controllable as well as uncontrollable factors.
I just don't feel the judiciary system we have (as whole on global perspective) even is not good. Well that's my feeling only , any one can have different opinion , but I need to understand why someone is seeing it as a good one.
Being a person , who always strive to positivity of things , I am really frustrated with judiciary system..... as it's speaks mostly in fgavour of money /power.
For poor people justice is a matter dream as they can not afford those flashy lawyers..
jeffrey friesen 20+
I would strongly suggest, given that America is one of the most corrupt countries in the world (as judged by the amount of money being stolen/diverted as opposed to the percentage of people stealing), that you find another model or at least understand the weaknesses inherent in the US system and design appropriately. Perhaps you could contact one of the professional legal societies (perhaps the brits ?) and see if they have advice or a guiding document to look at as a model.
jeffrey friesen 20+
Besides, in this case, it is an important distinction. The argument that without morality, one cannot expect good behavior has been used to justify discrimination against atheists (among others) for a really long time.
Morality is, at it's core, tribal in origin while ethics grow out of a reasoned response to societal fluidity and function. Just my 2 cents.
Salim Solaiman 50+
If so, how can we fix it it then you think ?
jeffrey friesen 20+
As such, law is more interested in how to apply the basis of our laws, rather than worrying about why we have that moral basis.
It seems a small distinction, but given that there are as many moral baselines as there are people, it seems a system of applying the common variables common to all moral codes seems more workable and practical.
I hope this helps.
Salim Solaiman 50+
A community or even with in a family , different members can have different belief systems (even if it is not different religion) does that mean that community or family don't have an agreed upon moral code?
The debate here can also be about applicability of law (which as per your comment is the prime motive of judiciary system) if you want to keep morality aside. Because of those twist from lawyers or bringing unrelated topics in to the proceeding to confuse judges ,jurries ,media, public (not sure how much pressure media / public opinion puts on judgement) and then prove the CONVICT (about whom lawyer him/herself also sure) as an angel.
By doing so is not law losing it's aplicability as well which as per your comment is the main concern of LAW?
Eun A Jo 10+
jeffrey friesen 20+
In those cases I will take ethics and professionalism, thank you very much.
Eun A Jo 10+
But let me add since you bring up a new side to the matter.
Your morality may not necessarily comply with the universal ethics. In other words, your "right" can be wrong.
(Though for majority, I think it's pretty clear that killing a human being is wrong.)
jeffrey friesen 20+
Shokrullah Amiri 10+
jeffrey friesen 20+
Salim Solaiman 50+
It will be great if you can elaborate a bit what you said.
Raymond Janeway
Morality can influence the law in the sense that it can provide the reason for making whole groups of immoral actions illegal.
Law can be a public expression of morality which codifies in a public way the basic principles of conduct which a society accepts. In that way it can guide the educators of the next generation by giving them a clear outline of the values society wants taught to its children http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/320/320lawmo.htm
Both morality and ethics can either be part of the law and not apart of the law.
jeffrey friesen 20+
Salim - sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. I was visiting family in the mountains and didn't have access to phone, fax, internet, etc. I hope all is well.
The law is what is legal / illegal and that is only what the government decides it will be. In some countries the rule of law is decided by democratic bodies. In some countries this process is fraught with corruption and cronyism. In other countries, such as the USA, it is decided by corporations.
This should not be taken as an indictment of government or the rule of law but rather of corruption.
Kate Blake 50+
No I do NOT believe it is moral or ethical for lawyers to use legal 'hitches' to get 'guilty' clients off! And it was my experience that they do so often in child protection matters. But that is what they are paid so well to do ... and they seem more interested in wealth and fame than 'justice' ... the 'legal' soapies show that.
What happened to the 'ironsides', the real truth and justice seekers?
Salim Solaiman 50+
Agreed fully with you.
But the reality is just opposite. Lawyers at large seems are in competition to show how efficiently they can prove a real "convict" as an angel !!!
More successful they are in doing that ,more money, more fame , more gliterring life style etc etc they enjoy.
So what kind of situation we are in when morality and ethics are at stake around our justice system? (used your small j, liked your that post )
Afraid am I whether performing the act "contempt court' by raising this issue !!!
Kate Blake 50+
The justice system has too many flaws and I was always ready to point them out ... but I was both a Justice of the Peace and a court officer. Judges knew they were up for some tough cases when I arrived in the court room, as I used to do the worst pedophile and incest cases as I was the first female officer in the outback. Somehow they 'respected' my honesty although I gave them hell.
Had a good laugh many years later when I found my 'emblem' still hanging behind the court tea-room door - they said that as 'a little [7 stone nothing then] person I made a big impression'. Police officers, best not repeated, actually did charge two and they were docked two weeks pay for what the average man would get 15 years for! My worst threat to keep them in line was 'I'll tell your wife" ... ha ha one has to laugh or one would cry. Maybe after my demise they should publish my poems?
Raymond Janeway
The problem is with lawyers who know that thier clients are guilty, the code of ethics for a lawyer prevents the lawyer from providing the damaging evidence to the prosecutor and requires the lawyer to defend the criminal to the best of thier abilities and word manipulation while unethical is not illegal however actually lying about evidence is illegal.
jeffrey friesen 20+
Shokrullah Amiri 10+
In other word, defending a convicted for personal gain is immoral, for finding the truth is moral.
However, we need smarter judges than smarter lawyers.
Salim Solaiman 50+
Other point is at least in my country observed smart law professionals don't aspire to be judge, after all money matters....
Helen Hupe 30+
Salim Solaiman 50+
Now
What's your thoughts then, those lawyers are Moral or Immoral ?
If Immoral , how that immorality is impacting our society ?
What need to be done if the impact is negative ?
Helen Hupe 30+
The lawyer him/herself is neutral but his/her actions are not. We should be living by the Golden Rule and some of them are not. As you say, Salim, you can twist words to say what you want them to say even though "legalize language" is supposed to prevent that.
How could burning your &&&& because you set a hot cup of coffee in your lap while driving be the responsibility of the restaurant where you bought it ? Ridiculous isn't it " That should never be allowed to come up in court.
Now for the murder and abuse cases...We have seen the introduction of "cards". Play the racist card, distract from the real issue, use law verbiage in a way it was never intended, fall back on laws that should not be there in the first place, falling back on precedent which could be unjust, ad nauseam Lawyers should be honest and moral for it is they who propose laws that make immoral things LEGAL.
I think that this should be stopped. Do you have any ideas as to how ?
Salim Solaiman 50+
Sorry am I as well for delayed reply because was out of internet connectivity (not complete though).
Yes those playful & funny lawsuits are making the justice system as whole to be funny , that what I feel.
I don't the know the answer , but I think we can have separate courts where those playful kind of lawsuit can be held.
For crime like murder , abuse should have separate court and judges lawyers has to pass through strict test of ethical & moral standard and to be on that court their ethical and moral practices should be under scrutiny time to time. The court also should have capability of offering higher monetary benefit to judges and lawyers working there as don't want to be more unrealistic ignoring money matter.
May be it can be a way out , so that lawyers don't twist words, or play different cards (as you told) to save a CONVICT about whom they are sure about to be a convict.
It might sound crazy idea , but that's what I can think about right now.....
jeffrey friesen 20+
Helen Hupe 30+
Salim Solaiman 50+
Agree the challenge is implementaion.
But that's the only idea came to mind once you asked.
The most important thing is that our awareness about how our justice system is working and how we can make them responisble.