On the need to defend the indefensible
This piece in The Hindu about defending the reviled:
“Come on, why should lawyers defend someone who is so ‘obviously guilty’?”The rest here.Although this may sound like self-serving lawyer-talk, the question of guilt, “obvious” or otherwise, is for the court and not for the lawyer — or for the press…
I’d like to think this collapse of real moral authority on the part of the state is a problem of our times. But sadly, history has shown that just about anything (including the Holocaust) can be justified in the short term through some combination of excuses like “greater common good”, religion and beliefs. People will believe any explanation in the short term, and by the time they wake up, too much damage has been done already.
Comment by Lekhni — December 4, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
Very well written article. I’d like to think this collapse of the state’s moral authority is a problem of our times. But sadly, history has shown us that’s never been true. Public opinion always wakes up too late to transgressions of the state. The media will always side with public opinion. Trial by media means a victory for propaganda and a loss for true justice.
Comment by Lekhni — December 4, 2007 @ 2:16 pm