Does LAWYERS tell lies deliberately to secure Victories for their clients ???
.jpeg)
A friend confided in me that he was culpable of homicide almost a decade ago . But he was given a clean bill after four years of legal fireworks!!
He has his attorney to thank for his dexterity and expertise in disputation that made the Presiding Judge pronounced him "discharged and acquited "
Question: ARE LAWYERS LIERS ??
How do they influence judgements in favour of their clients , despite their seemingly culpability??
Despite this glaring phenomenon, would you encourage your siblings and or wards to study to become lawyers ????
👛Please share your opinion to edify the world society👛
Hi @whyaskwhy,
At the outset I would like to request you to spell check your content before posting. Besides making the reading of the content laborious it doesn't reflect well on the writer and the community as a whole. Grammatical mistakes are sometimes unavoidable and even spelling mistakes of often misspelt words are acceptable but to totally go off the mark on standard English words is inexcusable.
The legal system in many countries is based on what is called the adversarial system of justice where the prosecution and the defense oppose each other. In this system each party is supposed to do its utmost to win its case. The idea behind it is that when they do, bringing out the best in each, then only the actual truth can be revealed.
So if the prosecution is hell bent on proving someone innocent as guilty, the defense counsel has to draw out all his skills to point out the holes in his arguments and prove his client's innocence. There has been many cases of innocent people who have been convicted and sentenced to jail for years and in countries where capital punishment is legal, even sentenced to death. Why don't you then say, "Prosecutors are liars?"
Likewise, if the defense counsel is hell bent on proving his client's innocence, regardless of the accused's actual culpability, it is the duty of the prosecution to rebut the evidence and prove otherwise. When each party does its duty the actual truth surfaces, regardless of whether the defense counsel actually knew his client's culpability - the accused is not duty bound to reveal the truth to the defense counsel. Even if the accused does reveal his intentions and what actually happened it may not be the truth for a variety of reasons such as he may be lying, suffering from delusion at the time of commission of the alleged crime or generally mistaken as to facts or law. The job of the defense, prosecution and the judge is the hear the evidence and based on that the judge has to deduce the truth. Even if an accused makes a confession to the investigating agency or in the court, he is not supposed to be convicted solely based on that without considering ALL the evidence.
Some accused may actually be wanting to be convicted because of various reasons such as being used as a proxy (stand-in for the actual accused) for valuable consideration being paid to his family or to himself upon his release. The accused may also do so simply because he is suffering from a psychiatric problem which makes him believe that he did actually commit the alleged crime when in fact he did not. He may have been threatened by criminal gangs holding his family ransom. The possibilities are endless.
All these is too much for the lay public to understand, hence the oft quoted phrase: "Lawyers are liars"
So, when an innocent party gets convicted, it simply means that the prosecution did its job well and probably the defense counsel didn't do his well. Likewise when a guilty party gets acquitted, it simply means the defense counsel did his job well and probably the prosecution didn't do its well.
I say, "probably" because the success or failure of a case depends on many factors and the skills of the prosecuting counsel and the defense counsel are just one among the many. In many cases, the investigating agency can muck up the case due to carelessness or inefficiencies leading to missing evidence, lack of cogent evidence etc. Remember even judges can make mistakes or be corrupt.
Thanks so much @attractions for your interest , advise, and comprehensive assay on the post !
The errors has been edited as necessary.
All your contributions were apt as the proceedures and inputs necessary to deliver judgements are not well known to the lay public .
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the post is never intended to cast lawyers in a dark light , but to attract discussions on why the public general opinions about the legal profession might not be as alleged . You have done that exhaustively!
Actually, to the lay man, lawyers are liars
But the truth is, lawyers dont lie they only amend facts