- This topic has 71 replies, 57 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
UHe said if a murderer and even a rapist is brought in court lawyers fight hard to get the sentence reduced instead of speaking in such a way that would ensure hard punishment to accused and in some cases is out on bail and he feels his work of catching criminal is getting undone as they are not being punished.
So as a Lawyer how do you manage morality, wouldn’t it be fair to the victim that the accused serves maximum sentence possible . Isn’t it our duty as Indians to get rid of crime in our Country and put these criminals behind bars or give death penalty them .
My uncle frustration comes from when there is clear evidence that the accused did the crime and still his lawyer try to get the sentence reduced compared to when the evidence is not so clear its understandable.
As I’m not a lawyer i would like to listen from Lawyer’s perspective what are your views on morality.
Edit:- if there were some changes to be made what should they be and how could they be implemented or is it not possible
-
UNAL – but innocent until proven guilty . If the guys own lawyer doesn’t fight for him/her – who will ?
-
-
-
-
MUltimately the answer isn’t as simple as that. I know we as lawyers are not supposed to be the judges of character, we are supposed to represent the client. But only a psychopath can be neutral towards a child rapist knowing that he’s a child rapist. In many cases, lawyers know that their clients have done the wrong and yet, defend them in courts. I was never comfortable with that, so I never chose practice.
-
UIt’s the govenments job to prove that a crime was committed and to push for the corresponding punishment under law. This is done by the government lawyers or prosecutors.
It’s the defence counsels job to make sure the government doesn’t pull any shady or illegal shit while proving said crime, and to make sure that the punishment doesn’t exceed what the law requires for that crime.
An ‘accused’ is just that, some has accused them of a crime, but until they see convicted, they are presumed innocent and cannot be punished. Bail is not get out of jail free, its a security deposit to procure the bailees attendance in court (thoguh will grant that there are inequalities in this process but thats a separate discussion)
-
-
SOur Judiciary works under the basic thumb rule of let 100 criminals go free but punishment of an innocent citizen is inexcusable ( although not in practice we never see it).
So it becomes the obligation of the prosecution to remove reasonable doubt and the obligation of the defence is to create more doubts. This process may lead to the lengthening or shortening of the punitive measures taken if proved guilty.
Although all advocates are humans and may have varied levels of morality in their personal lives but morality is kind of a moot thing in this profession as Firstly if advocates keep boycotting accused persons then I doubt how many people in this country will have the opportunity to be legally represented before a court of law for fair trial. Secondly as a democracy we require to have a Judiciary where even the lowest of the lows is given the right to be represented for the conduction of a fair trial…so that the accused can be punished when proven guilty. If they are not represented properly then it turns into another fiasco.
-
B>Our Judiciary works under the basic thumb rule of let 100 criminals go free but punishment of an innocent citizen is inexcusable ( although not in practice we never see it).
Those are all sound bites.
In case of a lot of cases like 498 A, foreigners act etc, The burden is actually on the accused to prove their innocence.
-
-
-
UIt’s as simple as, my job is to represent the client and his interests. The opposing counsels job is to represent the government and their stand. Ultimately, the judge decides what the punishment should be.
If I don’t defend him, I’m infringing his constitutional rights, and in fact, usurping the judges position by making a judgment
-
Qask uncle where is his morality when police beats up innocent people 24×7 or they take a bribe or they charge a wrong person for political advantages..
in India, a large chunk of criminal cases are against innocents..
read cases like jessica lal ..
policeman crying for less punishment is a crocodile.. he needs to look inwards
-
QWhat is moral to you might be immoral to others and vice versa. I love chicken while some other guy sees it as cruelty against chickens. You think murder is bad at all times but I think some murders are well deserved. You can’t enact laws based on feelings. You make things as clear as possible.
It is the lawyers job to get the client the best result regardless of circumstances. When a cop arrests someone for a crime, law needs evidence in proof of crime. The lawyer representing the accused is helping his client by interpreting law applied based on specifics of the case in question. It’s no different than an engineer problem solving for something based on constraints. The lawyer is evaluated based on his ability to use his knowledge of law to get his client the best results. This is akin to complaining that a butcher is always chopping up animals.
-
BAdvocate here,
There’s no simple black-and-white answer to your question because the legal system isn’t built on emotions or morality it’s built on due process. To truly understand why defense lawyers fight hard even for those accused of the worst crimes, you need to understand how the entire system functions.
Defense lawyers are not just necessary; they are absolutely critical to justice. A strong defense ensures that even if an accused person is convicted, the conviction is airtight and won’t collapse on appeal due to procedural errors or weak representation. If you remove the right to a proper defense, you invite wrongful convictions, police overreach, and a complete breakdown of the legal process.
Your uncle’s frustration stems from a misunderstanding of how justice works. His job as a cop is to catch suspects; the prosecution’s job is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense’s role is to ensure every legal safeguard is followed. If the prosecution builds a solid case and the evidence is strong, the accused will be convicted despite the defense’s efforts making that conviction nearly bulletproof against appeal.
If you truly want justice, you should want strong defense lawyers in the system. Because without them, wrongful convictions skyrocket, corrupt cops go unchecked, and “justice” turns into a system where anyone can be thrown away based on public outrage rather than facts.
-
KFair point. Am not a lawyer. My question is, what about cases which are absolutely open and shut in the eyes of the public? For instance, consider that you are representing the Pune Porsche accident driver; people know that he killed two people. There is enough cctv footage to put him behind bars.
Yet, when it comes to a cop who caught him, he gets away with a mild rap on his knuckles. Wouldn’t this rightfully demotivate the cop concerned?
-
SCrimes have designated punishments. Crimes also have a standard of proof. It’s the policeman’s duty to understand the standard of proof and prepare accordingly. The prosecution can only present the case as built by the policeman and the defence can only argue against the standard of proof.
If the facts and processes are airtight , conviction is guaranteed. Quantum of the sentence also depends on the solidity of the case.
All this assuming no corruption anywhere(a mighty assumption in India) . However any corrupt actor in the chain can derail the processes whether the policeman, the prosecutor, the defence lawyer or the judge. The issue then is not that the process is wrong but that it’s subverted illegally.
-
-
BYes, the public sees it as “open and shut,” but the law doesn’t work on public outrage it works on technicalities and evidences. CCTV footage? Sure, but was it legally obtained? Was the chain of custody maintained? Was the accused actually driving or can his lawyer argue that someone else was at the wheel? Was he tested for alcohol immediately, or did procedural delays “accidentally” mess that up? These are the loopholes that good lawyers exploit, and bad investigators (police) allow to exist.
-
-
-
KI appreciate your explanations. But things like the procedural delays and other loopholes are exactly what reduces public respect and sentiment towards the judiciary.
Someone kills a woman who was riding pillion and drags her for a good distance under his BMW while her husband desperately tried to get the driver to stop. Driver disappears and turns up 3 days later after spending time with family at a resort.
Procedural delay. Justice denied.Shouldn’t the blindfold and sword be removed from Lady Justice if the law cannot see what is really happening? Isn’t public faith important? Shouldn’t defence lawyers truly argue for justice rather than exploit loopholes such as that in my example?
-
-
-
SThere’s rarely a real open and shut case that the public know everything about. And many people like police officers, judges etc are biased on caste, religion and gender. The people who make important decisions are not perfect and many enjoy pushing their own personal agendas.
Now you’re first reaction would be wtf, what about so and so case.
Honestly, everyone lies. Everyone… especially the media, the uncle who thought he saw the guy go right and not left… so many small things go wrong. It’s very easy to convince 99% of the world it’s an open and shut case with just a few words and some pandering.
If you don’t believe me, just do a thought experiment — when two opposite sides riot, each side believe it’s completely right and the opposite did the bad thing first. Ten thousand people believe things are open and shut and kill others just based on their belief, because what they think they saw and heard has been twisted to fit their internal narrative.
There’s enough proof that so many open and shut cases are not simple and the wrong people are very often put in trouble.
People lie.
Hence we need strong systems that can reduce the probability of wrongful convictions at every stage
-
-
-
UMakes sense, Great answer!
But isn’t this based on a idealistic version of our system where everyone is expected to do their jobs? Didnt they think about possible corruption/human errors in this whole process? Are there any laws/institutions responsible to make sure all parties involved are working under the law of land?
Asking just out of curiosity! 🙂 -
UIf the legal system is not built on morality then why are honorable Supreme Court Justice trying to moral police youtubers?
-
-
-
BBetter? Sure. But perfect? Never. No matter what system you create, as long as humans are involved, corruption, bias, and power plays will exist.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OAn excellent explanation. Thank you! 🙂
I have a question that’s been bothering me regarding the execution of justice in India for quite sometime.
This is regarding the cases where the crime was committed with pure malintent. (Such as those involving for example, acts of jealousy and entitlement).
What are your thoughts and opinions about when such cases see a reduced sentence or the accused walks free due to a technical reason.
What is your take (meant for everyone) on defence lawyers that fight for these things for people in these circumstances?
I think the technical failing is still a valid and necessary thing that needs to be upheld, in the same spirit as the explanation that has been given. But what about the unfairness the victim and his kin experience following this, along with any possible acts of retribution.
Is there a just resolution for situations like these?
Edit – Typos.
-
-
-
-
AAdvocate here,
While speaking of practice, you might have came across many terrorist which were treated by doctors as well. Why they do so? Bcz we don’t see the character of a human, we see it as a case study. We don’t get attached to any cases emotionally bcz if we do so, we can be get biased if we just see the emotions of either party.
Just bcz a party is crying doesn’t mean they are right.
Check the news, advocates in meerut court thrashed the women and her boyfriend who murdered her husbandEven in ramayana, Army of lord Ram gave medical aid to the injured army of Ravan after the war at the end of each day ( don’t know if its true)
At the end of the story, every person out there deserves justice and taking revenge is not Justice.
-
RMy dad was a lawyer. I had a lengthy discussion with him sometime back about this very question.
Simple answer he gave was, there is no question of morality in the justice system. There are laws in general detailing out the rules to be followed. Every event is like a coin with two sides. In the court, both sides argue for their side using evidences (or lack of). The side with the better evidence and argument has typically the best chance of winning.
Sometimes when a side is about to loose they may try arguing for lesser punishment as well.
The only way for the police to be able to put the bad guy away is have the best evidences and the best prosecutor.
There are no absolutes here. For eg: Judges are human beings they make decisions based on the evidences laid out in front of them. They will try their best to stick to the rule of law. But sometimes, they will interpret the law based on precedents as well.
-
-
SWhile your uncle is not wrong to be frustrated but to be honest, advocates rely on the mistakes of Police in investigation to get the bail and lesser sentences. It’s the book prepared by the Police, advocates just review it. Also, what advocates do is legal, they are not allowed to judge, they just represent the facts and the law, decisions are taken by the Judge. Wrong to blame advocate for these things.
-
APractising advocate here.
At the beginning of my career, I was faced with these questions, and now after completing 7 years of practise I have come to realize a few things.
Every person, regardless of the severity or heinousness of the crime committed by such a person, has a basic right to be represented before a court of law. If an advocate has agreed to represent anyone before a court of law, she / he has to take up every possible defense that is available for the criminal. Moreover, the Advocates Act mandates that an advocate cannot say no to a matter.
It is not the advocate who decides whether an accused is a criminal / convict, it is the court who has to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the person involved has committed a crime. There is a reason why a person undergoing a criminal trial is identified as an ‘accused’, and not a ‘convict’ because that person is deemed to be innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. A person will be deemed as a ‘convict’ only when the State / police proves that a person has committed the said crime and a court of law determines the same.
-
-
EA lawyer is duty bound to defend his clients lawfully and all other factors , including his own personal beliefs, become secondary. Our system lays burden of proof on prosecution to establish the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. When the evidence is clear, should it matter what a lawyer says ? A learned Judge has to apply his mind on materials before him. If a Judge gets swayed only by persuasive arguments of a Lawyer and disregards material on record, it only reflects poor on the Judge. Your uncle’s frustration is probably misdirected at lawyers.
-
BNAL. But the police have caused more injustice compared to lawyers. And that’s due to very little fault of their own. Public opinion comes from what they see in the media and most of the times, it’s so far from the truth. If the police do their job properly in collecting and processing evidence, no amount of flair from the defence lawyer will protect the accused from prosecution, provided the system isn’t corrupt. Just because the police think they are sure the accused did it, doesn’t make it true. And in India, they don’t have the resources or protocol to do that. Most police stations look like public toilets and their record keeping is worse than an elementary school.
-
SYea, it’s totally wrong. Because the Indian police is a very competent agency that leaves no stone unturned and does not falsely accuse people without rock solid evidence. /s
Don’t get me wrong, but if you’ve ever dealt with police without “connections” you’ll understand why your uncle is no saint and every “clear” evidence they produce needs to be scrutinized.
-
-
UNAL, but this is something I understood from lawyer relative. If there is really a ‘clear cut’ evidence, no defense lawyer can win a battle in courtroom – judges are smart enough to smell bullshit. They win battles outside the courtroom, a.k.a corruption.
When there are stupid judgments, it doesn’t happen due to stupidity it is a conscious decision made due to nefarious reasons. We are the fools who believe such judgments are due to incompetency instead of seeing the blatant corruption.
You have to rectify the judges (not the lawyers) if you want to address the issues u’ve posted
-
-
-
ANAL
I am not getting you properly.
Do you mean to say an “alleged” criminal’s lawyer should let his client get the harshest sentence because he has been charged with heinous crimes? So, he should judge his client himself?
Or do you mean to say that your uncle, the policeman, is tired of losing cases against lawyers? Coz newsflash, it’s the prosecution’s bread and butter to prove their cases, isn’t it? It’s police who weaken cases by shoddy investigation and watered down charges. So, in conclusion, defence lawyers should do a judgement as prosecution and police failed in their work?
Clear your stance.
-
SYour uncle’s frustration misunderstands justice systems. Lawyers ensure the state PROVES guilt beyond doubt – remember Vishnu Tiwari’s 20-year wrongful rape conviction? New laws demand forensic evidence because “clear” cases often rely on coerced confessions or sloppy police work.
Bail reforms allow denial in heinous crimes with evidence, but imagine your family jailed over false charges. Harsher punishments don’t deter crime – certainty does. India’s 90-day investigation deadlines (2023 reforms) matter more than emotional sentencing demands.
System fixes that need immediate attention :
-Train cops, I think most of you will agree here (80% cases fail from evidence errors)
-21 judges/million people vs China’s 159(cause for insanely long overdue cases at every level)
-Proper victim compensation (only 3% get paid)
Our oath binds us to the Constitution, not mob justice. When bar associations boycotted “immoral” cases, SC reminded them: “Where liberties end, tyranny begins.” Blaming defenders for state failures is like hating doctors for disease. Fix forensic tech and judicial vacancies first.
-
UNAL, but I’ve heard that defense lawyers sometimes take on criminal cases despite knowing their client is guilty because a victory enhances their reputation and proves their skill in handling tough cases, and if they lose, they feel no remorse since they were aware of their client’s guilt from the start.
-
AThe Accused is innocent till proven guilty. It is on the onus of the prosecution to prove the crime committed. The police must do their due diligence and submit irrefutable evidence such that the defence can’t escape the guilty verdict.
But failing to do so would result in a not guilty verdict. What if as your uncle said the courts start convicting the accused of lackluster evidence, are you ok with that ? What if you are the accused in such a case with lack of evidence, do you still just accept the crime , just because someone alleged that you are the criminal.
The world is pacing and criminology and forensics have also improved a lot. The police department must adapt new successful technology and methods and nab criminals with good evidence. Then I don’t think such situations arise.
-
RAsk your uncle how many innocent under-trials languish in jails because cops and corrupt lawyers conspire to keep them there just so that both of them can leech off their relatives desperate to get them out of jail.
I’m a lawyer and it is very well known here that there is a circle of corrupt lawyers in every Court working with corrupt cops that poach on accused brought before the Court on remand.
-
ASo, innocent people languish in jails, because police and lawyers wanna leech of money from them and their families. But why not do the same for rape accused, or they wanna get them out, because they have a soft spot? If they don’t expect any money out of them or their families, wouldn’t it be easier for them to let the accused rot in jail?
-
-
-
PIndian courts run on money.
a. If defence has enough money, the police side lawyers will throw the case.
b. Govt lawyers are usually recommendation folks from the local govt/party. More than willing to collect money and keep delaying the case or not even present facts the police has collected.
( of course assuming police is pushing for the right evidence to be presented. her in lies another money pit which can swallow justice.)
c. If defence has no money, case is done and dusted within a few sirttings and convictions follow.
Crime and evidence just determine the cost.
Morality lies down well on a good mattress especially after a luxurious meal and drinks. Maybe guys/girls to give company once in a while.
-
Uumm the police cannot be trusted, plain and simple.
the police cut corners and don’t do due diligence in gathering evidence, not to mention they are super corrupt. The law’s job is to bring the the evidence to court and poke holes in it from every angle (prosecution and defence). if this is not done, the police will fabricate evidence and put anyone in jail
-
UI recognise the point you said but since this practice comes in a white area or operating procedures for court, I’m gonna jus put something out there.
Your uncle is making you believe that his work is most difficult and that cops spill blood and sweat but is simply washed out by corrupt lawyers.
The bigger face of this story is, all the numerous nasty, under the table things that the cops, lawyers and judges do in collaboration with each other. He just conveniently forgot to share how he’s part of a corruption and that’s paying him generously.
-
RWell in case of rape cases in india most r fake/false with vivahavagdhanam nalkiyulla peedanmas accounting for a vast majority of the cases whr the women file a rape case claiming wht ever consent she has extended over the past many years is out of the promise of marriage and marriage alone aka post defacto withdrawal of consent just to name shame destroy the life’s of their exs/live in partners who wanted out hence lawyers in most rape cases needn’t sweat a lot abt morality bse reason and logic in most such cases tends to be in favour of the accused.in case of murderers ur spot on in most such cases except a few in wch the actions of the murderer is both socially morality justifiable ..
-
-
-
-
BAsk your uncle how many times he had to let go of criminals coz he or his senior accepted a bribe or coz hos senior called him to let go.
Police are the most corrupt .
Evidence- ask uncle how much does it cost to get transferred to a crowded place in the city like karol bagh, chandni chowk… these police guys have to pay 1.2 crore to 60 lakhs just to get posted on crowded places, you know why???
Coz they the today’s goons ans collect 3000-5000 per week from eveey fcukin poor shop owner. Only junior constablea do it and are mainly collectors and distribute it to thier bosses up till the highest.
Don’t believe me???
Go survey yourself
Ask any e rickshaw why is there a police guy’s number ans name on it(if they get casught they have to mention taht police guy’s name to other police men ans they won’t challan or keep thier rickshaw!!!Go any any thela cart guy how much is police and mcd collecting from them every week.
Just YouTube these small businesses guys will tell themselves.You know why police says shit about lawyers?
Coz they are fcuking scared of them.
They are the only one saving common people from these goons ans can get them suspended.
Hence they keep blabbering shit about lawyers.Hesrd the story of the traffic constable who ammased 700 crores with 30k salary?
Ask him how he got that! -
STo say it simply . Yes and no . Justice system was made to provide justice only when 100% of the steps or close are followed correctly taking in assumption that corruption doesnt exist . This is the case when you talking about justice and morality.
In general most advocates would tell you justice is not their job , the process to it , is .
-
