Sorry for the lateness
With the fall break and all I got off track on which week was my week to post and to respond. So now nearly 16 hours late, here I go. I think my main issue with the Tom the murderer case is that it is only the last lawyer in town that is not allowed to opt out. Why is it alright for every other lawyer to opt out except the last? Why can't the last lawyer opt out and one of the original lawyers be forced to take the case? All of the arguments thus far refer to only the last lawyer in town. Everyone seemed to agree that if there was another lawyer to take the case then it was permissible to opt out. So again, why is it ok then and not for the last lawyer?
I feel it is permissible to opt out even if you are the last lawyer in town. I concede that a person has the right to a defense, but I feel the lawyer's right to opt out holds more weight than the murderer's right to a defense. If it is ok for every lawyer but the last to opt out, I feel as if we are punishing the lawyer for being the last. We are putting the rights of a murderer above the rights of a law abiding citizen. I understand that defense lawyers should know what they are getting themself into, but if they feel strongly enough that defending a given person would be wrong they should be allowed to opt out even if they are the last in town. This is not meant as a personal attack against the murderer. It is not meant as a purposeful denial of his rights. Instead I see it as a protection of the defense lawyer's rights. When someone breaks the law, I feel that they forfeit some of their rights. The state attempts to keep as many of them as possible still intact, but I think that it is more important to protect the law-abiding lawyer's rights than the murderer's who forfeited their rights the moment they murdered someone. I see citizenship as a contract to a degree. You abide by the law, pay your taxes, etc., and in return you are granted your rights. If you do not keep your end of the bargain, the state cannot be held responsible for its possible inablity to uphold all of your rights.
I feel it is permissible to opt out even if you are the last lawyer in town. I concede that a person has the right to a defense, but I feel the lawyer's right to opt out holds more weight than the murderer's right to a defense. If it is ok for every lawyer but the last to opt out, I feel as if we are punishing the lawyer for being the last. We are putting the rights of a murderer above the rights of a law abiding citizen. I understand that defense lawyers should know what they are getting themself into, but if they feel strongly enough that defending a given person would be wrong they should be allowed to opt out even if they are the last in town. This is not meant as a personal attack against the murderer. It is not meant as a purposeful denial of his rights. Instead I see it as a protection of the defense lawyer's rights. When someone breaks the law, I feel that they forfeit some of their rights. The state attempts to keep as many of them as possible still intact, but I think that it is more important to protect the law-abiding lawyer's rights than the murderer's who forfeited their rights the moment they murdered someone. I see citizenship as a contract to a degree. You abide by the law, pay your taxes, etc., and in return you are granted your rights. If you do not keep your end of the bargain, the state cannot be held responsible for its possible inablity to uphold all of your rights.
posted by Christa at
3:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home