 |
QuakerInfo.com Forum
A place to discuss Quakers and Quakerism
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JChang1
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 3
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:45 am Post subject: Can I follow the beliefs of a Quaker and be an Attorney. |
 |
|
I am due to start an internship at my local district attorney's office working for the victim-witness services bureau and am extremely eager to get started. This is because I always wanted to be part of the criminal justice system, but could NOT have been comfortable with myself working to free suspected criminals. In the future, I would like to work as a Assistant District Attorney so that I can ensure that criminals can be taken off the streets, reflect on their crimes, and rehabilitate themselves so they are contributing members of society.
So I guess I am asking If my future career follows Quaker principles?
FYI:
I would not take death penalty cases.
Thanks, I just attended my first meeting recently and just wanted to learn more! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
michaeldavidjay
Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 399
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Short answer -- yes... -- most of all because you ask the question.... but ultimately, you are going to have to figure out how that works. Perhaps you can talk about your concerns with someone who knows you... and, enjoy meeting!
_________________
Do Friends speak to today's condition, or are we only a historical footnote? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pulpculture
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Posts: 508
Location: England
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For me personally - I can't sit in judgment of others (i.e. punish others or the like). I was a Police officer and just about comfortable with the situation and my faith. The only time I technically judged others was speeding tickets and the drivers had their chance to contest the ticket in court after they drove away from me!
_________________
http://www.dontforgetburma.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1239
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthony wrote: |
| Why could this be a problem? Surely, someone has to work on behalf of criminals as we are all equal and have that of God in us. Surely it is up to the prosecution to prove that a person is guilty. If they cant then that is justice. I guess I must be missing something? |
Err, have I asked a silly question here?
_________________
"There is not an animal on Earth, nor a bird that flies on it's wings, but they are communities like you" The Koran 6:38 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pulpculture
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Posts: 508
Location: England
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthony wrote: |
| Anthony wrote: |
| Why could this be a problem? Surely, someone has to work on behalf of criminals as we are all equal and have that of God in us. Surely it is up to the prosecution to prove that a person is guilty. If they cant then that is justice. I guess I must be missing something? |
Err, have I asked a silly question here? |
You've asked two questions - which one do you perceive to be silly?
_________________
http://www.dontforgetburma.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1239
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pulpculture wrote: |
You've asked two questions - which one do you perceive to be silly? |
Well, it must be a good sign that you have to ask this question. I didn't say I perceived any of them as silly, but, as no one had answered my query, I just wondered if what I asked may have been irrelevant. I don't understand the American justice system.
_________________
"There is not an animal on Earth, nor a bird that flies on it's wings, but they are communities like you" The Koran 6:38 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
michaeldavidjay
Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 399
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
With the exception of one Louisiana, the American Justice system is the British Justice system... A criminal has the right to someone who argues that he is innocent (whether he is or not)... in order to force the state to actually prove that he is guilty. The defendant has the right to trial by a jury of his peers.
I guess his problem being defense is that he might have to argue the innocence of a client that he knows is guilty... i.e. he might have to misrepresent what he knows to be truth in order to do his job.
_________________
Do Friends speak to today's condition, or are we only a historical footnote? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1239
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| michaeldavidjay wrote: |
I guess his problem being defense is that he might have to argue the innocence of a client that he knows is guilty... i.e. he might have to misrepresent what he knows to be truth in order to do his job. |
Thank you  I wondered if I was missing something. Please stay with me on this: Is there an expectation that the defence lawyer will lie if necessary to get a client off? Is misrepresentation lying? If so, surely this is a crime in itself. Surly, it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt by presenting evidence and the defence to suggest possible alternative perceptions of the evidence or circumstances. Does it really matter if the prosecuting lawyer is aware that the his client is guilty if it is the responsibility of the law to prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. Behaviourally, as well as with verbal presentation, the lawyer has to appear that he believes his client is innocent. To refuse to represent a client because one knows he is guilty means that the lawyer is acting as judge and jury.
_________________
"There is not an animal on Earth, nor a bird that flies on it's wings, but they are communities like you" The Koran 6:38 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
michaeldavidjay
Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 399
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
@Anthony.
I'd think he'd make a good prosecutor. Too many prosecutors here think their job is a conviction -- even if the evidence fails to convict them.
_________________
Do Friends speak to today's condition, or are we only a historical footnote? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kiahanie
Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 291
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthony wrote: |
| Thank you I wondered if I was missing something. Please stay with me on this: Is there an expectation that the defence lawyer will lie if necessary to get a client off? |
The following is speaking only of the United States (excluding Louisiana):
A defense lawyer is considered an Officer of the Court.
"officer of the court n. any person who has an obligation to promote justice and effective operation of the judicial system, including judges, the attorneys who appear in court, bailiffs, clerks, and other personnel. As officers of the court lawyers have an absolute ethical duty to tell judges the truth, including avoiding dishonesty or evasion about reasons the attorney or his/her client is not appearing, the location of documents and other matters related to conduct of the courts." --thefreedictionary.com
| Anthony wrote: |
| Is misrepresentation lying? If so, surely this is a crime in itself. |
Depends on the type of misrepresentation. A defense lawyer is required to present the best possible case for his/her client. Sometimes this may mean making the implausible seem plausible.
A prosecutor is required to present the best case for conviction, although sometimes it happens that new evidence arises and a prosecutor will ask for -or agree to- a dismissal of charges "in the interest of justice."
As mentioned above, outright lying and presenting to the court as fact that which is known to not be fact is forbidden, is grounds for action by a state's bar association and is often a criminal offense. Fabricating evidence is illegal and unethical, and presenting evidence known to be fabricated is unethical and often illegal.
| Anthony wrote: |
| Surly, it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt by presenting evidence and the defence to suggest possible alternative perceptions of the evidence or circumstances. |
True. In a criminal case, the prosecution needs to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (In a civil case, a preponderance of evidence is adequate.) The defense presents evidence countering the prosecution's argument, alternative theories of the crime, even arguments that an action was not a crime. Raising reasonable doubt of a criminal defendant's culpability is enough, although the goal is often to disprove the prosecution's case.
This is civilized trial by combat, where "The Truth" is known by who wins. As Quakers realize, this is not the most effective way to discover truth, to shed Light on a situation, to find the balance between responsibility and restoration, individual liability and community integrity.
| Anthony wrote: |
| Does it really matter if the prosecuting lawyer is aware that the his client is guilty if it is the responsibility of the law to prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. |
A prosecutor will undertake a case if there is sufficient evidence to warrant a belief that a guilty verdict will be returned. (In many states, this is a legal requirement.) It is not necessary that the prosecutor actually believe the accused to be "guilty," although that is usually the case. The idea is that if there is enough evidence to warrant trial, then the legal process -not an individual's judgment- is the appropriate forum to resolve the question.
| Anthony wrote: |
| Behaviourally, as well as with verbal presentation, the lawyer has to appear that he believes his client is innocent. |
For a defense lawyer to present less than the best case is a violation of ethics, grounds for appeal, sometimes a tort and in some instances illegal.
There are probably a couple points worth making about the US system of jurisprudence. "Guilt" is technically a post-trial phrase that means to be found culpable by a court (jury or judge). Whether a person committed a crime or not, s/he is never "guilty" of it until conviction at trial.
"Innocent" is a non-entity. A court returns a verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty," never "innocent". A verdict of "not guilty" is occasionally returned when a defendant is acknowledged to have committed the action, but is found to be not culpable under the law.
| Anthony wrote: |
| To refuse to represent a client because one knows he is guilty means that the lawyer is acting as judge and jury. |
Again, it is important to realize that whether a defendant actually committed the alleged crime, that person is not guilty of that crime until convicted.
If an attorney declines to accept (or continue) a case, another lawyer will represent the client and the legal process will continue. It is both ethical and legal for an attorney to decline to represent a client because of what s/he discovers in the course of representing that person.
However, what is learned during that process is absolutely confidential privileged information, protected by law and ethics, and revealing it without the client's permission is a sure path to disbarment or worse.
OTOH, evidence that comes to a prosecutor that may be favorable to the defendant must (by law and ethics) be made available to the defense.
_________________
"There is a field out beyond right and wrong. I'll meet you there." --Jellaludin Rumi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
