Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryblood
No defence lawyer answers this question.
|
I'm not a defence lawyer, but my guess is the accused generally tells their lawyer everything. It's usually best not to lie to your lawyer, and unless you tell your lawyer about a crime you are GOING to commit (as opposed to one you DID commit), it will be protected by the privilege.
On the other hand, a lawyer cannot permit his client to perjure himself, so if he does tell his lawyer he is guilty, there will be absolutely no chance his lawyer puts him on the stand.
Of course, accused persons quite often don't testify. One of the basic principles of our system is that the accused is not required to give any evidence, and the court cannot draw an adverse inference from his choice to stand by innsilence and simply test the Crown's case.
I actually admire lawyers who can act for someone like Garland. Intellectually, I think what they do is perfectly ethical, and absolutely vital to our polity. It is also, I suspect, incredibly hard.
Speaking for myself, there is no way I could do it. I have a 5-year old boy of my own, so this story shakes me to the core. If it were me having to sit in a room with him and listen to that monster tell his story... Let's just say there is a decent chance I would be in jail.
The thing is... ethically, rationally, intellectually, I am absolutely committed to the idea that every accused person, even the worst among us, is entitled to a vigorous and competent defence.
Emotionally, as a dad? I'll give you a different answer.
A criminal lawyer never lets go of that ethical, rational, intellectual approach to the situation. As I understand it, the good ones can stay committed to their ethical duties to their client, even when their client is a monster. I don't think I could do it.