Q&A: Lawyer
Lawyer
Question
Is a lawyer who represents a rapist/murderer and other improper and immoral behavior also considered immoral? He says that “he leaves his conscience outside of work,” that every person is entitled to representation, and that if not him then someone else, and if not him then the public defender’s office.
Answer
Absolutely not. To convict someone, evidence is needed. The lawyer’s role is to make sure sufficient evidence is presented and that no reasonable doubt remains. So he does not need to leave his conscience outside, and this has nothing to do with the fact that there would be someone else. On the contrary, if there were no one else, it would be even more necessary.
Discussion on Answer
I think not, as long as he does not lie and acts within the law. A criminal conviction requires evidence. If the state wants to detain him administratively without evidence, let it do so. That is not the lawyer’s job.
There’s a genre of lawyers, of which Tally Gotliv is one of the leading figures, who don’t look for proofs and evidence but focus on the victim instead (in rape cases, for example) and make the victim’s life miserable until they break and refuse to testify.
The goal of lawyers in this style is not to convince the judges but to intimidate the complainant.
In other words, the question is whether it is moral to behave immorally? My surprising answer is: no.
This question came up בעקבות watching a new series, and I looked into the topic a bit. Even they have a red line: not to represent sex offenses, abuse of animals, or security offenses. According to their view, it comes out that one must distinguish between a murder suspect and a suspect in animal abuse. One took a life and destroyed the life of an entire family, and the other abused an animal (not minimizing it). In other words, it is possible to identify morality with this profession, and it seems you do not think so..
Indeed, I do not agree.
Thank you for the quick reply, and I’d like to ask a follow-up question—maybe the answer will be different: a lawyer who represents known criminals and their associates, where there is evidence that they deal in drugs, weapons, and gambling (meaning, these things make society worse), and uses his legal abilities to keep such people out of prison, with the result that they will continue to harm society through the means I mentioned—is there nothing objectionable about such a lawyer who does this for money, even though from experience he knows who the people involved are and that he is helping this continue to happen?