Thanks for your response. I was arguing against moral relativism so you're bringing the argument out of context and into different territory. I don't really want to split hairs about what moral values drive America. I think most Americans would still agree that the ten commandments do apply. I can't imagine what other alternatives there are.
If the justice system is reflective of present day values and morals, then I would hope that that those values and morals have evolved and not devolved, that there is greater enlightenment. I don't disagree about the law being a living, breathing thing. I might disagree on what "morals" seem to be reflected.
Having said that, I hope you understand that I wasn't tarring all defence lawyers with the same brush. Of course, there are all types on both sides!
As for the question of what is the "right thing"? Well, even the fact that it is even a question gives me pause.
Though I disagree with the above post to the extent that it stands for the proposition that the ten commandments somehow govern or "apply to" the citizens of the United States (*as I can think of a great many other religions with followers here in the US who believe that their religions' tenets are the most righteous, etc., etc., which is part of the reason that, for example, so many of the religious words/phrases, are being slowly but surely carved out of the legal system of the US,) even if I were to agree with said proposition, for purposes of argument only, it's simple to say "the ten commandments apply," but it's a lot harder when applying them to real, present day fact situations.
What is the "right thing?" For me, as an attorney, it's keeping my promise to my client, the courts and my profession.
For example, the defense lawyers for Wilson had, first and foremost, legal, ethical and moral obligations to Wilson that attached when they accepted his defense. Choosing to interview him in regards to a crime for which he wasn't charged placed them in a precarious position, very precarious indeed. He didn't choose to place them there, they did it to themselves.
The American legal system is founded upon basic precepts, one of which is the attorney-client privilege.
To the extent that the above post suggests that Wilson's attorneys owed some legal, moral or ethical "duty" to Logan, who was not their client, that would have required them to violate their duties to Wilson, I strongly disagree.
In this case, since Wilson did die before Logan, and the attorneys for Wilson maintained the secrecy until Wilson's death, which was the restriction Wilson placed upon his attorneys, or the "authority" he'd given them, it was a no harm, no foul re: Wilson's attorneys' duties and obligations to Wilson.
As I'd intimated earlier, one had better hope that if one were ever accused of a crime that one's attorney could uphold these duties and obligations, else one might find oneself in big trouble at the hands of one's own attorney.
