I was assigned to defend the Japanese. What should I do?

Is it the duty of lawyers to maintain social justice? In the opinion of most of our lawyers, this question can be answered in the affirmative without much thinking. Because Article 4 of the Code of Professional Ethics and Practice Discipline of Lawyers in China clearly stipulates that lawyers should be loyal to their duties, adhere to principles and safeguard national laws and social justice. And Hu Qiaomu's poem praising lawyers is often talked about and widely quoted by our lawyers-"You come with the crown of thorns, you come with the sword of justice, lawyer, the sacred gate is the gate of hell, but you regard all obstacles and temptations as nothing, and your motto: everyone is equal before the law, and only objective facts are the supreme authority." In poetry, lawyers seem to be the embodiment of justice like judges. Especially after the litigants finally settle their grievances through the efforts of lawyers, such evaluation and positioning will be further strengthened and widely recognized by the people. Many lawyers choose this profession with the ideal of maintaining social justice and take it as their motto. However, the reality is embarrassing: on more occasions, especially in criminal defense, our lawyers often have to face the cross-examination and accusation of public opinion-how can you speak for the bad guys! At this time, the lawyer seems to be the "devil's spokesman". Lawyers who fluctuate between the appreciation and doubt of public opinion and switch between the roles of "just defender" and "evil accomplice" encounter the confusion and trouble of "who am I". This kind of confusion and trouble of lawyers is no exception in China and the West. A joke widely circulated in western legal circles vividly tells the dilemma and embarrassment that lawyers often face in their practice. A promising young lawyer won a great victory in a lawsuit. He immediately sent a telegram to his client: "Justice has won". As a result, he quickly received a reply from the client: "Appeal immediately!" . This can't help but make me think deeply-what is our lawyer for? Can he pursue the substantive justice of the case according to his own morality? On the other hand, when the result of our own efforts makes a guy who was originally contrary to justice get the support of legal proceedings, will our lawyers face subjective moral condemnation for objectively "trying to get sick"? Is this subjective and realistic moral condemnation feasible and necessary? Should the "persistent" pursuit of substantive justice in such cases be regarded as the original intention of establishing a lawyer system? If we want to analyze this series of doubts, it may only belong to the professional role of lawyers themselves. We should re-examine the role orientation of lawyers by examining the role and functions played by the lawyer system in the operation of the whole judicial system.