uhh, i guess this is kinda long. oh wells!
We had the case in class today of “the last lawyer in town” defending Murderer Tom. It was said that Tom has a right to a defense lawyer. I said that the lawyer – fully knowing that Tom actually committed the murder because Tom admitted to it – has the right to opt out of defending Tom from the huge power of the state because if the lawyer does not feel it is right to defend someone who is guilty. Say that this “this last lawyer in town” does not feel it is morally right to defend Tom, and he also feels that it would be morally wrong to try and get Tom a lesser sentence, then I believe that the lawyer has the right to opt out, even if he is Tom’s last resort.
I compared this to the case of a doctor who has a patient who wants to be euthanized. It was said that these cases are not analogous because in one case you are preventing a harm (saving Tom from having to face the state on his own, and possibly saving him from the death penalty) and in the other case you are introducing a harm (ending the life of a patient (granted the patient asks for this with a rational mind.)) However, I see it as in one case the lawyer has the right to opt out of an action he feels it morally wrong and this will prevent him from harming his character and in the other case the doctor is doing the same thing: opting out of an action he feels it morally wrong and preventing the harm of his character. I feel that the lawyer and the doctor have the right to opt out of doing something they feel is morally wrong. They have the right to prevent a personal harm.
Also, another analogy between the cases is this: Tom introduces himself to the harm of the wrath of the state by killing a person and the patient introduces himself to the harm of his own death by asking to be euthanized. Tom knows the repercussions of killing in this society, and the patient knows the repercussions of euthanasia (it is odd to state it as a repercussion, but I feel it is an acceptable way to put it.) They both know when they perform their action (killing and asking) that they are introducing themselves to harm. In Tom’s case it may just be the possibility of harm, because if he doesn’t get caught he can’t be held accountable by the state, but he is still knowingly introducing himself to the harm. I feel the cases are analogous enough to illustrate my point that the lawyer has the right to opt out of defending someone in a case where he feels it is morally bad to help them. He has just as much right to opt out as the doctor who feels it is morally wrong to assist in suicide/death.
posted by Jen Ming at
4:15 PM
1 Comments:
There is a reason why we call lawyers “scum sucking bottom dwellers” and it’s not because they have morally clean slates. (Since I seem to be the one the example is about. You would think I would fight for the killer’s side of things...but,) If I honestly killed someone and admitted to it, giving every reason for the lawyer to believe I am sound of mind, and truthful about my testimony, I do not think there is a moral obligation for anyone to defend me. There may be a lawful obligation, but that is very easily distinguishable from the realm of the moral.
I am suspicious of including “role obligations” under morality, because I don’t really feel any moral intuitions about them. I am not MORALLY obligated to my mother, I am obligated out of decency. Someone who does poorly at living up to lawful or dignity obligations may also be morally corrupt, but not necessarily so. In fact, I argue there are many clear cases where the morally right thing to do is to forsake job/dignity/contract/convention; these things are more than often wrong morally. For instance, it may be my job as part of Germany’s military to kill innocent Jews. It would be against rules of dignity to disobey my commanding officer when he tells me to do so. But the act is still morally repugnant.
I think that the case of the lawyer defending me, it is merely an obligation of his duty and lawfulness that says he has to defend me. There is nothing moral about it, in fact it may even be morally wrong to do so. That’s why lawyers are scumbags. Because they’re job is often to do the morally offensive thing. They sacrifice that for their values of decency and lawfulness, and we sort of let them off the hook....in the sense that they aren’t severely punished for it. We still call them scumbags. But when I go murdering people, I gotta have someone to turn to.
By
Tommy G!, at 6:25 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home