Yes
Allan, I did say that it was the duty of defence counsel, if they believed their client was guilty, to ensure their client got a fair trial. In light of the debate on this Ill expand a bit further.
The fundamental duty of a criminal defence advocate is to zealously represent his client within the bounds of the law. He has a duty to his client to fearlessly raise every issue, advance every argument and ask every question, however distasteful, which he thinks will help his clients case to the best of his skill and diligence. But, as an officer of the Court concerned in the administration of justice, he has an overriding duty to the Court, to the standards of his profession,
and to the public, which may and often does lead to a conflict with his clients wishes or with what the client thinks are his personal interests.
He may advise his client in strong terms that he is unlikely to escape conviction and that a plea of guilty is generally regarded by the court as a mitigating factor to the extent that the client is viewed by the court as co-operating in the criminal justice process. Hell strive to see that his client isn't punished excessively.
The advocate-client relationship is two-way. If a client lies to his counsel, counsel isnt under some holy obligation to ignore the lie and continue trying to get his client off without punishment. Even if he did apparently commit the crime, he is still entitled to the best advocacy available to him, because there may be mitigating circumstances not warranting the maximum sentence.
Counsel will represent his client as best he can, even if he hates the guy. Even if he thinks the guy is guilty, he doesn't know the guy is guilty - there's a difference. If the client tells him he's innocent, then as far as counsel is concerned, he's innocent. Counsel doesn't have to believe him. It doesn't matter what counsel personally believes. He's being paid to do a job and he can't let his personal feelings get in the way.
AJ, (little history lesson here)
![Smile :) :)]()
This is known as Blackstone's formulation or ratio and actually goes back to the days of Abraham. The principle is that "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". This was absorbed by the British legal system, becoming a maxim by the early 19th century. It was also absorbed into American common law, cited repeatedly by that country's Founding Fathers, later becoming a standard drilled into law students all the way into the 21st century.'
JJ, I truly believe everyone is entitled to legal representation, guilty or not. Centuries ago, accused people had no representation and didn't even have the right to defend themselves. Consequently huge numbers of people were sentenced to death, years of imprisonment or torture just because someone accused them of something. In those days the majority of people were illiterate. These are some of the main reasons why the criminal justice system started evolving. I know what a compassionate person you are so I'm sure you'll understand what I'm saying.
I have a very strong opinion on Roux and the rest of the DT and, to use your words, I don't know how they sleep at night either.