For example, if a police officer unjustly kills a Black woman in cold blood, and the victim’s cousin’s daughter is a defense attorney who helps get the officer acquitted, would she be morally wrong for defending him?
That is what they call a conflict of interest, and it would be justification to recuse themselves from the case, and failing to do so could cause an opportunity for the case itself to be overturned on appeal.
Wrong? It would create an unethical conflict of interest, that the judge wouldn’t allow. So in that sense it would be wrong.
Immoral? Not if they genuinely gave the cop the best defense possible. In fact, I’d think it honorable for someone to uphold their principles even against the personal pressure they’d be feeling from much of their family.
It’s important for people to have protection from a system that’s too often used to abuse. Even if the accused was formerly one in a position to offer said abuse.
Principles aren’t principles if we don’t uphold them when it’s most difficult to do so.
You forgot some important words:
“Accused of killing”
If a defense attorney [acting in good faith] successfully helps acquit a police officer, the fault is on the state for failing to put forward a good enough case to convict.
Yes, it’s called conflict of interest. Your question is a loaded question because it states that the officer “kills” the victim and it was “unjustly”. Let’s a officer is accused of causing the death of the victim. The cousin lawyer may not do all the work required to defend against the allegations or may hide evidence that he is innocent since it doesn’t fit what they want.
On the other hand, maybe cousin lawyer hated the victim. Maybe the cousin slept with the lawyer’s husband. Maybe the lawyer suspects she can get a payout in a civil court later if the cop is convicted.
The risks of these occurring are so great that this shouldn’t even be considered and I think would be banned by the bar association.
Yes, it would be wrong, it would be a betrayal of the family. Why would she do that?
That being said, there are good reasons lawyers who consider themselves to be good people defend criminals they consider to be bad people (such as paedophiles). The reason is that by giving them an ironclad defence, they make it harder for the criminal to appeal if found guilty. And if they are found not guilty, it isn’t the fault of the lawyer, it’s the fault of the system for not making a better case. It is a pillar of criminal justice that it is preferable to let ten guilty men go free than it is to convict one innocent man. Of course, we all know the system is not infallible and that the innocent do get convicted anyway, but that is not the intent of the founding of the system; it’s more a product of modern corruption (which isn’t even that recent, it’s actually been going on for decades).
No, because people’s morals are their own.
