Why do lawyers defend "really" guilty people?

There have been some explanations for this problem 2. Here, I want to make a supplementary explanation from three angles: first, from the lawyer's point of view, even if the lawyer knows that ta really committed a crime, then this "knowing" comes from the meeting between the lawyer and the client, that is, listening to the client's own account of the crime. Lawyers have the right to know this, but at the same time, lawyers have the obligation to keep secrets for their clients. Defense lawyers should not produce evidence against their clients (of course, they should not forge or destroy evidence), which is a necessary professional right for lawyers to perform their professional duties. Just as doctors can know some private information of patients and should keep it confidential. So this lawyer can't be the one who reported his client's crime. The second source of "knowing" is that the lawyer witnessed the criminal's criminal process, and at this time the lawyer should be a witness, and the identity of the witness and the identity of the defense lawyer are in conflict. At this time, the law stipulates that the identity of witnesses takes precedence, and lawyers should testify in court instead of becoming defense lawyers for criminals. If a lawyer is not a witness, then he has no obligation to testify knowing that his client is guilty. On the contrary, his profession requires him not to provide evidence against his client. At this time, if lawyers want to continue to defend their clients, then, under the premise that the prosecution has sufficient evidence, European and American lawyers will generally persuade their clients to plead guilty and make a sentencing transaction with the prosecution: that is, in exchange for a lighter sentence, it is called a "plea bargaining". Lawyers in our country generally adopt "plot defense", that is, when they can't plead innocence, they defend the mitigating circumstances and strive for a lighter sentence for the parties. In the case of insufficient evidence from the prosecution, lawyers can even defend their clients' innocence. Because in the absence of evidence, no one can guarantee that what the suspect said is true. At this time, the lawyer can't guarantee that the crime that the client confided to him is true. Generally speaking, the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that in the absence of other evidence, a criminal suspect cannot be convicted only on the basis of his confession. The value goal pursued behind the legal provisions is: it is better to indulge a thousand than to kill one person by mistake! Will anyone still agree that "it is better to waste than to stand"? "。 Wang Jingwei put forward that "it is better to let one go if you kill a thousand by mistake". This is reflected in the judiciary, that is, sloppy, reckless and indifferent to the right to life; And "I'd rather let go of a thousand than kill one person by mistake" is reflected in the judiciary, which is prudent and fair, and it is also a great respect for the right to life. No system can solve all the problems entirely by itself. Any system is just a compromise, a choice and a way after the balance of two rights (or multiple rights) under the existing conditions. We can't expect, let alone require, such a system. So, be tolerant. Second, from the social point of view, if lawyers can turn the criminal statements obtained from the parties into evidence against the parties, then the result will be that all criminal suspects will not tell the truth to lawyers, or that such lawyers are not needed, so lawyers are unnecessary. Without a lawyer, everyone must defend himself with his own legal knowledge in the future. For real criminals, people may say it doesn't matter, but what about some wronged people? Who can guarantee that the people arrested by public security organs and procuratorates are 100% truly guilty people! Can we completely guarantee that there will be no "Nie Shubin" or "She Xianglin"? ! Statistics show that even in the United States, where the rule of law is developed and the death penalty procedure is strict, "from the 1970s to 2000, nearly 100 people in the United States were sentenced to death, and then they were found to be misjudged. A study by Columbia University Law School investigated thousands of criminal cases and found that seven out of ten cases made serious mistakes. Most of these mistakes are because the defendant did not receive qualified professional assistance. " (Linda's book: sweeping leaves for winter, p. 182~ 183. Published by Sanlian Bookstore, 2006.438+00. Therefore, just as the government is a necessary evil in society, let us regard lawyers as a necessary evil in practice. Third, from the perspective of the system, of course, knowing that his client is guilty, a lawyer, as the client's defender, can apply to withdraw from the case. But the suspect also has the right to hire another lawyer, or the court must appoint another lawyer for ta. The right to defense is a sub-right to a fair judicial trial, and the right to a fair judicial trial is a basic human right. Basic human rights mean that as long as ta is an individual-whether male or female, good person, bad person, adult or villain-as long as ta is a person, ta should and must enjoy these rights. In sex book tycoon, LarryFlynt said happily on the steps of the US Supreme Court, "Our Constitution protects even assholes like me, let alone other good people! "Freedom of speech and expression is also a basic human right. A country with strict law enforcement must extend the protection of basic human rights to all people, including "inferior people", "bastards", "beggars" and even "criminals". Finally, as a minority, please allow me to end this article by quoting Linda's words: "The system requires the minority to obey the majority, and at the same time requires the majority not to oppress the minority and not to infringe on the freedom and rights of the minority. In order to do this, in terms of system design, channels of appeal, defense and resistance should be reserved for minority people with different wishes from the beginning. ..... If the law doesn't intend to protect one in ten thousand, it can't protect the' five percent', so the' majority' itself is potentially dangerous. We used to be used to the law not protecting the' 5%', because when we were in the' majority', we took it for granted that the' majority' was right, and we only knew that we were glad that we were not in the minority. No one has ever thought that if you don't stand up to protect the 5% you don't agree with or even like today, how can you be sure that you won't be there next time? )