The ex-wife of a French man on trial for allegedly orchestrating her rape by strangers while she was drugged has spoken out, saying she feels humiliated by the proceedings. She accused some defense lawyers…
Gisele Pelicot said she was reacting to remarks by Guillaume De Palma – one of the lawyers for the defence – who told the court that “there’s rape and there’s rape” in a possible attempt to back up some of the men’s claim that they assumed they were participating in a libertine couple’s sex game.
IDK about “legally obligated”, but certainly professionally and ethically obligated.
If someone commits a heinous crime, and you want them to rot in jail for 100 years, then you need them to have the strongest possible defence. Otherwise, they might be able to appeal their conviction, or the family of the accused may feel vindictive.
Basically, if you want justice you need the best possible defence.
But which law says that specifically? It’s like people say companies are legally required to make profit for shareholders but can’t ever point to any actual laws
The CEO of a company having a fiduciary obligation to the board and a lawyer to defend their client the best they can aren’t “actual laws” where a cop will arrest you. They are rules for the job and if you are not following these rules then you will be fired/lose your license to practice law.
That’s probably why there is no law that people point out to you. It’s a job requirement.
Based on what criteria ? By legal definition, all the clients of a defense lawyer are initially innocent until it’s proven to be otherwise during trial.
Even the worst piece of shit is entitled to a defender, that’s one of the few things that keeps a small amount of fairness in the judicial system.
What you’re saying amount to saying that anyone accused of rape should not be entitled to a lawyer or that you think there’s some kind of good rapist that deserve a defense and bad rapist that don’t… Which is weird.
Don’t feel too bad for them now.
Lawyers are legally obligated to be advocates for their clients. They have to pursue arguments which may strength their cases.
This may be their only avenue for a defence strategy.
IDK about “legally obligated”, but certainly professionally and ethically obligated.
If someone commits a heinous crime, and you want them to rot in jail for 100 years, then you need them to have the strongest possible defence. Otherwise, they might be able to appeal their conviction, or the family of the accused may feel vindictive.
Basically, if you want justice you need the best possible defence.
If they don’t defend their client to the best of their ability, they are guilty of perverting the course of justice. It’s a legal obligation.
The reason… is everything else you wrote.
But which law says that specifically? It’s like people say companies are legally required to make profit for shareholders but can’t ever point to any actual laws
The CEO of a company having a fiduciary obligation to the board and a lawyer to defend their client the best they can aren’t “actual laws” where a cop will arrest you. They are rules for the job and if you are not following these rules then you will be fired/lose your license to practice law.
That’s probably why there is no law that people point out to you. It’s a job requirement.
Exactly my point
They could also conscientiously object and just not take the case.
I think most places would view such a refusal as grounds for disciplinary action against the lawyer.
New Zealand for example has legislation to address this: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2008/0214/latest/DLM1437864.html
There can be good causes to refuse a client, conscientious objection is not one of them.
In most countries you have the right to a lawyer, which means some lawyer has to take the case eventually.
Based on what criteria ? By legal definition, all the clients of a defense lawyer are initially innocent until it’s proven to be otherwise during trial.
Even the worst piece of shit is entitled to a defender, that’s one of the few things that keeps a small amount of fairness in the judicial system.
What you’re saying amount to saying that anyone accused of rape should not be entitled to a lawyer or that you think there’s some kind of good rapist that deserve a defense and bad rapist that don’t… Which is weird.