But if we take the theory of amorality as well. Professionally speaking, a criminal lawyer is not morally committed to what a child abuser does. But if we bring the theory of amorality to these transnational fields, we can no longer sustain it in a coherent way, because the conditions that sustain amorality simply don't exist. Everyone convicted of a crime has the right to an attorney and will be provided with one if they cannot afford one.
Even though there are some lawyers who only try to protect people accused of a crime because it's their job, some lawyers take it as a challenge. Abbe Smith has had several cases in which she has chosen to defend murderers, stating: “I like the guilty, I prefer those who have defects and are complicated. There will be times when a lawyer will be expected to defend a client even though the odds are stacked against them, but that's why lawyers must find a balance between ethics and legal knowledge from textbooks. Perhaps, as in the case of prosecutors who don't care whether the defendant is innocent or guilty, and who may deserve moral censure for refusing to address these issues, there is a related concern (although, in this current political and social climate, less immediately problematic) concern that should not be neglected.
Something clearly immoral from a personal perspective can be justified from a lawyer's point of view. For example, it's more common to see people with stricter personal moral beliefs (including religion) as prosecutors (or future prosecutors), while defense attorneys may not think of their religious affiliation as a governing principle. But what I mean is that if you are confronted with one of the lawyers telling you that what you are doing is immoral, the lawyer cannot systematically resort to the standard response of “amorality” on the grounds that she is only doing her job and following her client's instructions. Under these conditions, in my opinion, they do not have the moral protective shield that the theory of amorality provides in the more traditional domestic context.
And recusing yourself from participating in a case in which a defense attorney no longer believes he can defend a person he considers guilty may be, depending on how you look at the outcome, simply placing the problem on the shoulders of another defense attorney. A lawyer may be asked to defend a person convicted of murder if they cannot afford their own defense, or their client may accidentally say too much, which changes their personal perception. Cole, what other types of people might be attracted to the role of defense attorney, especially in cases where there isn't much ambiguity as to the defendant's culpability. Something clearly immoral from a personal perspective, such as withholding information obtained from a criminal, can be justified from a lawyer's point of view.
From a moral standpoint, it's quite a challenge because when you, as a lawyer, are literally creating the law, you can no longer say that you are not morally responsible. There are a lot of heroic defense attorneys who are doing tremendous work; there will also be a lot of ethical and unethical prosecutors. The lawyer who proposed the principle of the free transit of oil is morally responsible for this idea. When lawyers are literally creating the law, they can no longer say that they are not morally responsible.
