Quote:
|
Originally Posted by milo
id question the notion of moral responsibity when defending someone who hasn't been found guilty
|
Why? Clearly, there are somethings which are acceptable and some which are not in the pursuit of their duty (i.e. defending their clients). As you say, they are not allowed to do what they want, and the rules which govern what they are allowed to do must be based ultimately on some notion of morality (i.e. what is justified and what is not).
The point originally raised is that their behaviour in the case mentioned might not be strictly against the rules but might still be wrong in some sense. furball's responses of ignoring morality "because it's their job" which was what I was responding to.
edit : It could be worse, our lawyers could do stuff like this :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4989034.stm