RESPECT: Lawyers or Doctors.....

[bobbyb]

---

puro mga ma-ot!
mga mapahitas-on!
mga hambugero!
mga naong ug kwarta!
puro way utang kabubut-on!

ana gyud nang mga politiko.

[jestine]

Pardon if u think my answer is kinda out of line from the question asked. For me, the teacher who taught and educated the doctor and lawyer is the one who deserves most of the respect. Without the teacher, there would never be great proffesionals in every field.

[yokam]

there are, of course, some cases where everyone (even lawyers) knows that a person is guilty. but if the evidence is not sufficient to convict, then that's it. that's the way the criminal justice system has always been, and unless the constitution is changed to remove the presumption of innocence, that's the way its going to be.

If this is the case and you really know that your client is guilty, di ka makonsensya and you still go and defend him? Would you rather do it because it's your profession and to protect your credibility or follow your "conscience" to serve justice?

[fingolfin]

@minuano,

you have to remember though that an "acquittal based on reasonable doubt" does not mean that the accused did not commit the crime;

.. this sums my question. you already knew that the defendant has committed the crime, let's say for example murder. Why would you still try to alter the truth and abuse this almighty law everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty . Well, to make it short, this is a question on morality. Why defend someone who committed a crime Our judicial system was created to protect the innocent, but how come there are "guilty" people who becomes "innocent".

[LytSlpr]

.. i give more respect to doctors, not because i'm one but because of what they, or "we" do. It's helping people. People in need. But sometimes there are some who put patients on a leash, give false medications just to suck money out of rich people. And no offense to any lawyers out there, but i don't like it when they defend the guilty. I mean, the phrase " not guilty until proven so", give me a break, it's so lame. For sure along the line, there are times when the lawyer sees that the person they're defending is indeed guilty but then they try to alter the truth. I find it so gutless.

but there should be a reason why the practice of law is said to be the noble profession and not medicine.

the way is see it, it is not just by simply saving lives but protecting the rights of a life because a life without justice, freedom and equality is a life not worth living.

so probably that's the reason why law is the most noble profession.

but sa personality and character, mas respectable ang doctor kay daghan lawyer nga hambugero probably because the profession calls for over confidence. pero daghan sad mga doctor mo suyop ug shabu a habit they caught when they were studying medicine and they were not able to kick then they became doctors. when i was studying in cebu doctors' daghan kaayo med studes, men and women alike use meth to study.

i can live with my lawyer using drugs, but my doctor? NO WAY!

[Dorothea]

^hala! sakto kamatikod pud ko ani...my sil's ex-bf is a trial lawyer and he's a MAJOR a-hole...ang ako pud EENT sa una, he was a really good doctor, and he had such a nice and vibrant personality, pero mao pud lagi, he was a junkie...pero bisan unsa nga propesyon dili gyud maayo ang mag drugs kay ma apektuhan ang kalidad sa trabaho...

[Minuano27]

If this is the case and you really know that your client is guilty, di ka makonsensya and you still go and defend him? Would you rather do it because it's your profession and to protect your credibility or follow your "conscience" to serve justice?

your question would be valid if you ignore the lawyer's obligation that i posted above, and the way the legal system works.

as i posted, the lawyer's first task is to test the evidence of the prosecution. in some cases, that's the only defense that can be made, like in that infamous claudio teehankee jr. case in the early 90s (which together with the vizconde and the rolito go cases led congress to pass a law imposing the death penalty for "heinous crimes"). especially in the teehankee and rolito go cases, everyone knew they were guilty because there were victims who survived the shootings, and the events were well publicized. in short, they were "convicted" in the eyes of the public. so what then? they automatically go to prison? without any trial? they may have been convicted in the eyes of the public, but that's not the way things work.

the most IMPORTANT thing that should be remembered is that the PROCEDURE APPLIES TO EVERYONE. that's the way it should be, because in case YOU are charged with a crime, the whole process will apply to you.

for example, you're driving your car and you hit someone, who dies in the hospital. you're charged with homicide through reckless imprudence. there are witnesses who saw you when you stopped your car after hitting him. your lawyer will naturally ask you if it's true that you were driving the car and you hit the victim. unless you lie to your lawyer, then he will KNOW that YOU ARE GUILTY. so now apply your argument to yourself - would you rather have a lawyer committed to defending you by testing the prosecution's evidence, or a lawyer who's half-hearted about it because he has a "guilty conscience" because he knows you're guilty?

[Minuano27]

@minuano,

you have to remember though that an "acquittal based on reasonable doubt" does not mean that the accused did not commit the crime;

.. this sums my question. you already knew that the defendant has committed the crime, let's say for example murder. Why would you still try to alter the truth and abuse this almighty law everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty . Well, to make it short, this is a question on morality. Why defend someone who committed a crime Our judicial system was created to protect the innocent, but how come there are "guilty" people who becomes "innocent".

first of all, the presumption of innocence is not some trivial intellectual concept. it's not only in the constitution, it's also in the universal declaration of human rights.

you ask "why defend someone who committed a crime?", and bring up the moral question. my answer is in my reply to yokam - what if YOU were charged with a crime? in my example of you driving your car, you hit someone, and you're charged with homicide through reckless imprudence, YOU are CHARGED with a crime. then what? no lawyer will defend you because you committed a crime? you won't want a lawyer to defend you because you "committed a crime"? unless you're crazy enough to go to jail for several years without any trial (which will be highly unlikely), you will WANT a lawyer to defend you, so that the prosecution will be forced to PROVE that you are indeed guilty.

one the other hand, if you lie to your lawyer and deny that you were driving, who is "altering the truth" now? your lawyer can either believe you, or he's morally convinced that you're guilty because of the witnesses and the other evidence. now what?... either way, is your lawyer now "gutless", because he's defending you and "altering the truth" based on what you lied? or is he "gutless" because he's defending you even if he knows that you're really guilty?

as i said the PROCEDURE APPLIES TO EVERYONE - rich/poor, sensational cases, cases you've never heard of, cases involving YOU. or should it apply only to you and not to those who you "think" or "believe" are guilty?

[fingolfin]

or is he "gutless" because he's defending you even if he knows that you're really guilty?

.. is this the very nature of being a lawyer??

.. basically, that's the whole point of my question. Let's take your example; I committed a crime, then i was CHARGED with that crime. In my own conviction, i am guilty, because i know deep inside me that i've killed someone coz i drove him/her over with my car. I mean, why is the law like this ?? In our example, i am guilty but still a lawyer comes in to protect me. I'm not being martyr and i'm not a saint, but why would you protect me ??

[Velvett]

i say lawyers are in a delicate position and for that they deserve respect. there's the ultimate respect for good character, and there's respect for the profession or role itself. i may secretly despise my boss for being ineffective, but i still respect his position of leadership.

that pretty sums up my attitude to the matter.