Fighting for the Defendant
Fighting for the defendants doesn’t mean the lawyer wants to help them exculpated. According to Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.” And we, Taiwan as one of those countries that signed the international convention, also have our legislation to help the parties be treated equally in the court. If the defendant doesn’t have a lawyer, the presiding judge has to assign a public defender or attorney for the defendant during the process of pretrial detention. Besides, no one should be seen guilty or as a criminal due to the presumption of innocence in our country. Thus, in my opinion, lawyers should always work hard to defend a client whether they think is guilty or not.
"The Code of Criminal Procedure" in Taiwan
If the lawyer can only defend the right of the innocents, the basic entitlement of the criminals is neglected. According to Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it mentions that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” without any reason or under what circumstances. In the court, all the parties should be treated equally to have a fair trial. Additionally, the duty of a prosecutor is to provide pieces of evidences against the defendants, and the obligation of an attorney is to find possibilities that are beneficial to the client. It is wrong that the attorney, the prosecutor, or the judge has too much power in their hands. All of them should mutually supervise each other. According to Gross’s study in 2004, about 4.1 percent of the defendants are later shown to be innocent after their being executed to death. If the defendant doesn’t have a lawyer, the prosecutor might use his public power to find the evidence that is not beneficial to the defendant. It is unreasonable that because there is a victim, the right of the defendant thus should be ignored.
If the lawyer accepts the defendant’s appointment, he/she is responsible for striving for the best interest of the defendant. It doesn’t mean that the legal officer is talking black into white, not to mention concealment or destruction of evidence. When the client is actually innocent and wronged, the lawyer should defend him so as not to be punished. In contrast, if the client is indeed guilty, the lawyer should help him to have a proper sanction. The attorney is only seeking the best result or the most proper punishment for their client, but not lying in front of the judge or helping their client exculpated. Thus, it is the attorney’s obligation that no matter the client is actually wronged, they should always find the best interest for him/her.
Some people might doubt the lawyer cares about the defendant’s privilege；then how about the right of the victim? Indeed, the entitlement of the victim and his/her family is absolutely important. From my viewpoint, I totally agree that criminals should pay for what they have done as well. For instance, they should admit and regret for their behavior, and clean up their acts. Nonetheless, if a victim has his right and if a defendant is condemnable are literally two different issues to discuss. Take the criminal cases for example. These cases always arise the anger of the public, and everyone wants the sinner pays for what he have done as soon as possible. But if the defendant stands in the court is truly innocent, does the victim get the right they desire for? The media always focuses on how pitiful the victim is and judges the defendant is guilty even before the judgment. Nevertheless, their behavior will result in public pressure and social unrest, which the judge might not be able to judge neutrally. The rights of both parties are important, but not only the victim could have his right. For instance, many murderers have mental problems and could not control their behaviors. But many of us will not think to that point, we only think that the offender is sinned. We outsiders cannot only care about the action itself but also the reason why the offender does so. Also, before the coming out of judgment, nobody is guilty because of the presumption of innocence. According to The Code of Criminal Procedure in Taiwan, we can find “Prior to a final conviction through trial, an accused is presumed to be innocent. The facts of an offense shall be established by evidence. The facts of an offense shall not be established in the absence of evidence.” in Article 154, Section 1, Chapter 12. What’s more, the justice what the victims and their family want is that the truth simply comes out in the end and the methods of compensation from the criminal but not the defendant. That’s the way how our society fight for the victim and their rights, but not cursorily sentenced the parties into crime.
Justice is about to be served in the court. Every party should be equally standing in front of the judge, no matter he/she is the plaintiff or the defendant. The existences of both lawyer and prosecutor are somehow the same, and they are providing the justice for the parties that they ought to have. In addition, we outsiders cannot “judge” if one is guilty before the final trial because we don’t have any evidence. In a nutshell, the attorney should always try their best to help the defendant whether the party is guilty, and this is the basic right everyone has.
References
United Nations (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Taiwan (2003) The Code of Criminal Procedure
Sources
Judical Yuan, Taiwan (2019) 什麼案件，被告雖然沒有請律師，法院仍會指定公設辯護人或律師為被告辯護？ Retrieved from :
https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-1654-2664-2af0e-1.html
Gross, Samuel R. (July 24, 2015) The staggering number of wrongful convictions in America. Retrieved from: