Justice for whom? Whose lawyer? -Review of the movie "Sex maniac hell" The movie "Sex maniac hell" tells the story of a lawyer defending his "sex maniac" client. Lawyers know that the client is guilty

Justice for whom? Whose lawyer? -Review of the movie "Sex maniac hell" The movie "Sex maniac hell" tells the story of a lawyer defending his "sex maniac" client. Lawyers know that the client is guilty, but they still make suggestions for the client's defense, let the client be acquitted, and claim to stop the client from continuing to commit crimes in order to save others' lives. The ultimate goal is to put the client into hell, thus safeguarding social justice. However, I can't help asking: As a lawyer, should he safeguard the interests of the client or social justice? Is it against professional ethics for a lawyer to give advice to a client knowing that he has violated the law? If a lawyer wants to maintain social justice and is unfaithful to the client, is it also against professional ethics? Is there really irreconcilable contradiction and conflict between safeguarding the interests of the parties and maintaining social fairness and justice? I think we should first solve a problem: what is "justice"? The author believes that justice is based on morality and can satisfy the value judgment of most people. Although the concepts of legitimacy and justice are similar, they are different. Legitimacy is closer to the meaning of righteousness. For example, there is a law, which is not in the interests of the people, but as long as the law is applied equally, it can at least be said that justice is safeguarded, although it is far from justice; If a law conforms to the interests of the people, then justice is safeguarded. In other words, lawyers, including lawyers, maintain justice for good laws and justice for evil laws. Let's talk about the lawyer in the movie. The lawyer in the movie gave us a very strange logic: he tried his best to defend the innocence of the client and secretly collected the criminal evidence of the client, in order to prevent the client from committing a crime and thus safeguard justice. During this period, firstly, the lawyer betrayed his client; Second, many innocent lives have been sacrificed. What is the significance and value of this? I can't agree with lawyers. First of all, the lawyer's duty is to respect the legal system, respect judicial personnel, earnestly safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of clients, and at the same time supervise the honest behavior of judicial personnel and promote judicial justice. From this, it can be seen that lawyers play an active role in realizing the true and fair purpose in judicial activities. Lawyers safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, thus safeguarding the correct implementation of the law. If lawyers blindly pursue the interests of their clients in litigation, regardless of whether the interests of their clients are legal or not, their activities are likely to hinder the true discovery of judicial activities. If a lawyer misbehaves in litigation, he will not only be disciplined and bear the risk of legal responsibility, but also be subject to judicial sanctions. However, lawyers may betray their clients in order to uphold justice. Well, in this case, I think the lawyer violated professional ethics. Lawyers' professional ethics require lawyers to be responsible for their clients, and not to be lazy and lazy. Because upholding justice is the unshakable power of lawyers. Lawyers have no power, and the most important thing to safeguard justice is those who hold state power, accept public power and entrust power to the people, such as judges and prosecutors. What lawyers do can only be to safeguard judicial justice. For example, in criminal cases, legal procedures require a defense lawyer, even if the criminal suspect is guilty of heinous crimes, it cannot be omitted. So, can we say that it is against our conscience for defense lawyers to defend criminal suspects? Obviously, this statement is untenable, because the professional nature of lawyers requires lawyers to do so, just as we can't think that people who execute the death penalty intentionally kill people. For another example, after Simpson was acquitted, many people scolded the lawyer for not doing justice. Dershowitz, a member of his defense team and a professor at Harvard Law School, explained: "Lawyers can't take patriotism, civic goodwill, religion, gender or racial identity, or any other ideas and commitments more important than their clients." "Criminal trial is more than just the pursuit of real justice. When defense lawyers represent a truly guilty client, they also have the responsibility to try to prevent the fact that the client is guilty from surfaced through all fair and moral means. Failure to do so is dereliction of duty. This is the requirement of our constitution and legal system for defense lawyers. " From the above discussion, the author draws the conclusion that it is not the duty of lawyers to safeguard justice, but the duty of prosecutors and judges. The duty of lawyers is to do their best to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the parties and judicial justice without violating professional ethics.