Posted on: 01-03-08 15:51:37
No doubt Jethmalani has all the right to choose his cases based on his own principles and perspective.
Speaking of ethics Mr. Jethmalani has always got attracted to cases which have got most limelight and meida/public attention and being on the the other side of fence gives you more attention.
Yes everyone deserves frail trial as these poor guys are just victims of media trial and have not done anything wrong...L.K Advani’s Hawala case, Harshad Mehta case, Sanjay Dutt’s bail case and Laloo Yadav fodder scam case...isn't it?
How ethical and fair was on his part to malign character of Jessica Lal! Anyways it all ended in Manu Sharma being sent behind bars.
In one of his interviews he said he took up this case as he had obligations and he wants to defend someone who is being judged via media trial and may not have taken the case if there was no media propoganda.
He has in-depth knowledge of criminal law and is highly skillfull.Wouldnt it be nice to see a man of his stature doing something productive and setting up good example to benefit new generation lawyers and the Nation on the whole!
Quote:
Originally posted by HelloG
How ethical and fair was on his part to malign character of Jessica Lal! Anyways it all ended in Manu Sharma being sent behind bars.
Exactly, we can be sure that justice was served in spite of Jethmalani. Justice won finally.
I think Jethmalani IS doing the cause of justice by taking up cases he should fail in. All those case you mentioned have been widely publicized and the accused have already been declared guilty by the media....and thus the public opinion.
According to me he IS setting a good example. He is putting the justice system to the test. He is making sure that the media and public opinion is NOT the judge and the jury. He IS putting power back into the court system than in the court of 'public opinion' that can easily be manipulated by media.
The question is if we want to have a justice system based on what the written law says. Or do we want the justice system based on public opinion?
If we want the justice system that works via the courts, let the lawyers do their jobs. Both for the defense and for the prosecution.
One cannot have a democracy with just one party. One cannot have justice when there is just one perspective...even if its the almighty 'public opinion'. Hitler had 'public opinion' behind him when he took power.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
NOTE: IN all the cases that you mentioned Hellog. My personal opinion is that the accused should have been found guilty. BUT, i know that my personal opinion has severe limitations and should not be considered the final say
here is a nice view that sums it up...from a blogger
"And what was the outcome? Manu Sharma got convicted for the murder of Jessica Lal. Even the great Ram Jethmalani couldn't save him. And now all the noise all of made at that time seem pointless! But think about it, when we as a nation were asking Ram Jethmalani not to defend Manu Sharma, we were attacking the very essence of our judicial system and our constitution. If you were in Manu Sharmas shoes, and unlike him, you were not guilty, but perceived to be so, wouldn't you want a capable criminal lawyer defending you? And if all good lawyers refused to take up your case fearing public backlash? That would have been a mockery of our judicial system.In the end I'm glad that Ram Jethmalani took up the case and even more glad that Manu Sharma got convicted."
http://roshanrk.blogspot.com/2006/12/nation-of-over-reactors.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
Quote:
Originally posted by jake3d
Quote:
Originally posted by Fido
The emphasis of a lawyer should be to bring out the truth and not argue for the sake of winning . .
This is probably where we disagree. A lawyer who does not argue for the sake of winning has already decided what the truth is. Don't you see that this approach does not serve or secure justice in anyway?
I think a lawyer decides in advance which side he is on while agreeing to represent the case . Ethics come in where a lawyer based on his manipulative processes attempts to distort the case . Imagine him arguing that a Sikh walked up and killed Jessica Lal ..... baloney ....
In olden times probably in Rome they used to hire best wrestlers to fight and decide who would win in case of a dispute . Obviously the better payer would get a better fighter . Same is the case today when you can hire better brains to defend you by paying more money ...... why has Jethmalani s portfolio always comprised of the rich and the famous who are seeing the gallows ---- why does he not defend the unknowns - the answer is simple - this guy tries to use his professional knowledge for money in defending the wrong side .
Much like the kidney doctor who brought kidneys from poor people to serve the rich - I am sure Jethmalani would find familiarity and defend his case too !!!
These days especially in India the judiciary has become a farce and corruption reigns because of people like Ram Jethmalani who twist and malign the facts knowing what they are doing and also knowing that their actions may help in getting the guilty free.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fido.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fido
Ethics come in where a lawyer based on his manipulative processes attempts to distort the case .
The judge and court decides if it is distrotrion based on the evidence presented in court.
Fido and Jake3d does not decide who is distorting what, based on what we read in the Times of India/Indian Express or see on NDTV.
Quote:
Imagine him arguing that a Sikh walked up and killed Jessica Lal ..... baloney ....
That's for the judge to decide. Not you or me. The judge apparently did decide that it was indeed baloney. So Justice apparently did prevail.
Quote:
Much like the kidney doctor who brought kidneys from poor people to serve the rich - I am sure Jethmalani would find familiarity and defend his case too !!!
If he does and loses like he did in the Manu Sharma case...The constitution and the justice system is the winner. Or should we make sure he has a substandard lawyer to defend him Or should we just hang the guy without a trial?
Quote:
These days especially in India the judiciary has become a farce and corruption reigns because of people like Ram Jethmalani who twist and malign the facts knowing what they are doing and also knowing that their actions may help in getting the guilty free.
Again, its the judges and the courts job to decide that. Not Ram Jethmalanis or Fidos or Jake3d's. There is no purpose in the justice system if you and I decide how a lawyer should or should not do his/her job.
The other alternative is that all lawyers of Jethmalani's calibre be barred from representing people the public opinion has decided to be guilty. Only allow substandard lawyers to defend those who are 'obviously' guilty. Then we can have a polling system on Canadiandesi to decide who is 'obviously' guilty based on what the media(ndtv?) says and assign our substandard lawyer to that guilty party.
Heck, why have lawyers and courts at all? Lets just rely on our polls
. Ofcourse, we should all hope that in such a system none of us ever are thought to be 'obviously guilty'-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
