At a time when the culture war is being fought more fiercely than ever before in the legal system, I believe that our nation is in need of more good Catholic and good Christian lawyers and judges. However, today's political correctness dictates that people "compartmenatlize" their lives. Thus lawyers, judges, and politicans can be religious, but many expect them to check their religion at the door when they get to work. They are expected by many to have a "professional compartment" and a "religious compartment" that never intersect with each other. A good Catholic or Christian, however, is not supposed to do this. The teachings of Christ are supposed to pervade all aspects of the Christian's life.
With that in mind, along with the fact that criminal law is a large area of pratice in our legal system, I would like to pose a question. Can a Catholic or Christian attorney, in good conscience, defend a guilty client? A Notre Dame professor who has great things to say about being a Catholic lawyer in a secular society says there is
no problem with defending a guilty client.
This blogger disagrees.
This article about an SSPX legal issue quotes something that Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote in his
Summa Theologicae:
"'Now it is evident that an advocate provides both assistance and counsel to the party for whom he pleads. Wherefore, if knowingly he defends an unjust cause, without doubt he sins grievously, and is bound to restitution of the loss unjustly incurred by the other party by reason of the assistance he has provided. If, however, he defends an unjust cause unknowingly, thinking it just, he is to be excused according to the measure in which ignorance is excusable.' (ST II-II.71.3)"
Aquinas' words would seem to be definitive. But what did he mean by an "unjust cause"?
Our justice system in the United States is based on the axiom that it is better that 100 guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted. That is why defendants in criminal cases have so many rights. That's why everyone accused of a crime has the right to an attorney and a fair trial. That's why the burden of proof in our system is on the prosecution and why the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Notre Dame professor says that sometimes a guilty defendant pleads "not guilty" to request that the government prove its case against them beyond a reasonable doubt. This is what our system requires of the government. Would it be an "unjust cause" to make the government do the job it is required to do when it decides to charge someone with a crime?
If you found yourself facing criminal charges, would you choose not to seek the services of a defense attorney? Even if you were innocent, you would be hard pressed to find a good criminal defense lawyer that had never represented a guilty client. Would it be hypocritical to condemn them for what they do in their profession, but then avail yourself of their services when you need them?
I tend to think that trying to get an obviously guilty client acquitted would be sinful. But I also think there are cases when the guilty person doesn't deserve a harsh sentence. He obviously needs a lawyer to argue his case, because the prosecuation will try to get the stiffest sentence they can get. Wouldn't a Catholic lawyer be justified in defending these clients? Also, the Catholic Church's stance on usuing the death penalty only in cases where there is no other way to protect society from the guilty person would seem to justify a Catholic attorney representing a guilty client facing execution (at least during the sentencing stage).
What do you think? Can a Christian or Catholic lawyer, in good conscience, defend guilty clients?
