re: Defense Attorneys, have you ever represented a client that you knew was a colossal POS?

quote:

---

You make a good point. There is nothing moral about killing another human being.
I would argue, however, that the lawyer has freedom of choice while the soldier often does not, at least not when the penalty to disobey orders carries a consequence of jail or death.

---

A criminal defense attorney who attempts to withdraw from representation because they realize their client is guilty faces ethical sanctions. A soldier who refuses to follow a lawful order faces legal sanctions.

Both made their decisions prior to that point. The attorney chose to do criminal defense work, knowing that one day they might be required to represent a guilty person. The civilian (outside of a draft scenario) chose to become a soldier, knowing that one day they might be required to kill another human being simply because their government told them to. I don't view the initial choices to be fundamentally different.

quote:

---

The very basis of fighting a war in many cases, is purported to be a moral one. It is made out to be a battle of good vs evil, and the reasons why you consider your side is good are morally good reasons. As long as civilians aren’t targeted and children aren’t used, I would consider the war to be ethically good. Even the brutal killing of the enemy can be considered ethical since it will bring a faster end to the war itself. And there is nothing more ethical than self preservation. My point is, what is considered morally and ethically good or bad in war align, regardless of whether the war is just.

---

This begs the question, in my opinion. If you hold the position that homicide is still considered "morally good" in an unjust war, I think we have a disagreement on core terms that I'm not sure we can overcome.

quote:

---

In the legal profession, lying is not only okay, it is absolutely necessary to do the job (ie provide a defense to a scumbag that is guilty).

---

Utterly untrue. I did criminal defense work for over a decade, representing several thousand people and I never, ever, not once lied in the process. Not to a prosecutor, not to a judge, not to a jury. Never.

quote:

---

And unlike the soldier, the choice is not life or death.

---

We can quibble over initial aggressor doctrine, but ultimately, if we're talking spittle to mud combat, I would generally agree with you. But what about the man on the cruiser launching missiles off the coast? What about the kid holding an Xbox controller looking at the drone he's controlling kill a couple dozen people on a screen?

To bring us full circle, and before someone starts frothing at the mouth: no, I don't think soldiers fighting wars they believe are just (right or wrong) killing enemy combatants are committing immoral acts. Wars happen. Wars need soldiers. Soldier have to follow orders, or the entire system shuts down.

But in the same way, our Constitution holds that everyone accused of a crime is entitled to competent, zealous defense. If every attorney in the country woke up tomorrow and refused to engage in criminal defense representation, every prosecution in the country would grind to a halt. After a long enough period, every single defendant would get released of their bond obligation. Because the reality is that unless you have attorneys who are willing to defend the guilty, you can't prosecute the guilty. And accusing them of being "immoral" because they "chose" that necessary line of work makes no more sense than accusing our soldiers of immorality because they chose that line of work.

quote:

---

Sorry for the long reply. If you wouldn’t have made such a good point, my answer could have been shorter

---

Absolutely no reason to apologize. Your response was a good one

quote:

---

I dont know a lawyer who wasn't a colossal POS.

---

I know a couple that are true, class act people. I know a lot more that are pure scum.