Q&A: Every Person Has a Right to a Lawyer
Every Person Has a Right to a Lawyer
Question
Hello Rabbi, and good morning.
I believe that every person, no matter how vile, deserves someone who can defend him in court; without a person having the ability from the outset to defend himself in court, the trial is not a just one.
On the other hand, I believe that a lawyer is not supposed to represent just anyone. That is, if I were a lawyer, I would refuse on grounds of conscience to represent sadistic people if I knew they were guilty, and I would expect that morally speaking no lawyer should represent them.
But that of course contradicts what I said before, that every person ought to have representation and a defense in court.
What does the Rabbi think about this? I assume I’m mistaken somewhere here; the question is where.
Answer
First, there is no contradiction here at all. It is possible that everyone deserves a lawyer, and yet you do not want to do it, and that too is your right. Even if no lawyer can be found for him at all, there is still no contradiction. He deserves it, but you do too. A person can think that so-and-so deserves the death penalty, but he himself does not want to kill him.
That is if we are talking about your right not to represent him. If you are talking about an obligation not to represent him (that is, that it is forbidden to do so), then the clash is more direct. Still, even that is a possible situation. Society thinks there is an obligation to provide him with representation, but from your perspective there could be an obligation on you not to do it (the command of your conscience). But that is already more problematic because of the categorical imperative (you would not want it to become a general law that no one should represent him).
But in my opinion, you are mistaken in your basic assumption that it is forbidden to represent such a person. The whole idea of legal representation is to prevent one of two situations: 1. That an innocent person be convicted. Representation is meant to ensure that he really is guilty and that there is no mistake. There is no logic in objecting to that, since before the trial you do not really know that he is guilty. 2. Even if it is clear to you that he is guilty (you have personal knowledge), we still do not want society to convict a person without sufficient evidence (even if he is guilty). True, that defendant would not suffer an unjustified harm from such a conviction, but the justice system would be harmed. We do not want to live in a society that convicts a person without evidence. Therefore, a lawyer is appointed on his behalf to defend him and challenge the prosecution in order to make sure it has properly met the burden of proof. [Perhaps this is part of the rule that a person cannot render himself wicked. A person is not convicted on the basis of his own confession, even though factually he is completely reliable. Of course, this point could be analyzed and debated.]