Name: Dat Nguyen (Leo) I'm an international student from Hanoi, Vietnam Major: Economics Post-Grad goal: Try out a job as a bartender Hobbies: Traveling abroad, gaming, learning random interesting facts/useful lifehacks
Something about myself: I really enjoy hanging out with my friends, even if we're not doing anything at all. My superpower is my determination to finish whatever I fully put my mind to. If i had a superpower, I wish i could have perfect confidence to be able to try out anything I'm "scared" of right now: trading in the crypto market, try out as many jobs as I can. Presentation link: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/19y75ihZOfhgShRdQqCqRNAv-wgGWQU9P5FInNNmSqyM/edit?usp=sharing
I think this is a very complex topic. It makes me wonder about the ethical implications of having lawyers be paid to, in a way, lie. If we are actively encouraging highly educated people to do this, is this something that we value as a society? We associate the competency of a lawyer with persuasion, or the ability to get people to believe what you are saying. When we value that over the truth, that might break some moral codes.
I really love this topic. I have similar thoughts about why some lawyers still protect a criminal, where it is so certain that it is this guy who commits a crime. While I have noticed that every criminal, before they are judged, is called a criminal, everyone has the right to have a lawyer defend them. It is all for the integrity of justice.
I am in agreement with Toshith here. Trials in criminal proceedings and defense/prosecution of the accused are always necessary to the integrity of justice, no matter how guilty the suspect appears to be. Testing the bounds of one's alleged crimes and making sure the evidence against them is proper is absolutely essential. I don't believe it makes a lawyer a bad person to defend someone who is almost certainly guilty; I think that they're just doing their job to uphold justice.
One important point to consider is that criminal defence is not just about the individual case, but about protecting the structure of justice as a whole. Even defending someone guilty can serve a larger purpose by making sure the state proves its case properly and that legal rights are not ignored just because someone seems guilty. Without that, the justice system could become dangerous for everyone.
My view is that one must remain objective before choosing to become a lawyer. Lawyers should not allow personal opinions to influence their judgments. To respect the profession and fulfill their obligation, I believe lawyers should defend their clients even if they know the client is guilty. However, from a different perspective, utilitarianism provides a strong argument: if convicts are not punished, they may cause greater harm to society as a whole.