275

Ex-wife in rape trial says she feels 'humiliated', accuses lawyers of implying complicity. (www.rfi.fr)

submitted 1 month ago by 101@feddit.org to c/world@lemmy.world

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] NocturnalEngineer@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc 12 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 17 points 1 month ago

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.

[+] Shard@lemmy.world -7 points 1 month ago

They could also conscientiously object and just not take the case.

[-] tobogganablaze@lemmus.org 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

In most countries you have the right to a lawyer, which means some lawyer has to take the case eventually.

[-] interurbain1er@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] asret@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 month ago

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.

this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024

275 points (97.3% liked)

World News

38987 readers

2024 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.