No doubt Jethmalani has all the right to choose his cases based on his own principles and perspective.
Speaking of ethics Mr. Jethmalani has always got attracted to cases which have got most limelight and meida/public attention and being on the the other side of fence gives you more attention.
Yes everyone deserves frail trial as these poor guys are just victims of media trial and have not done anything wrong...L.K Advani’s Hawala case, Harshad Mehta case, Sanjay Dutt’s bail case and Laloo Yadav fodder scam case...isn't it?
How ethical and fair was on his part to malign character of Jessica Lal! Anyways it all ended in Manu Sharma being sent behind bars.
In one of his interviews he said he took up this case as he had obligations and he wants to defend someone who is being judged via media trial and may not have taken the case if there was no media propoganda.
He has in-depth knowledge of criminal law and is highly skillfull.Wouldnt it be nice to see a man of his stature doing something productive and setting up good example to benefit new generation lawyers and the Nation on the whole!
Quote:
Originally posted by HelloG
How ethical and fair was on his part to malign character of Jessica Lal! Anyways it all ended in Manu Sharma being sent behind bars.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
NOTE: IN all the cases that you mentioned Hellog. My personal opinion is that the accused should have been found guilty. BUT, i know that my personal opinion has severe limitations and should not be considered the final say
here is a nice view that sums it up...from a blogger
"And what was the outcome? Manu Sharma got convicted for the murder of Jessica Lal. Even the great Ram Jethmalani couldn't save him. And now all the noise all of made at that time seem pointless! But think about it, when we as a nation were asking Ram Jethmalani not to defend Manu Sharma, we were attacking the very essence of our judicial system and our constitution. If you were in Manu Sharmas shoes, and unlike him, you were not guilty, but perceived to be so, wouldn't you want a capable criminal lawyer defending you? And if all good lawyers refused to take up your case fearing public backlash? That would have been a mockery of our judicial system.In the end I'm glad that Ram Jethmalani took up the case and even more glad that Manu Sharma got convicted."
http://roshanrk.blogspot.com/2006/12/nation-of-over-reactors.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
Quote:
Originally posted by jake3d
Quote:
Originally posted by Fido
The emphasis of a lawyer should be to bring out the truth and not argue for the sake of winning . .
This is probably where we disagree. A lawyer who does not argue for the sake of winning has already decided what the truth is. Don't you see that this approach does not serve or secure justice in anyway?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fido.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fido
Ethics come in where a lawyer based on his manipulative processes attempts to distort the case .
Quote:
Imagine him arguing that a Sikh walked up and killed Jessica Lal ..... baloney ....
Quote:
Much like the kidney doctor who brought kidneys from poor people to serve the rich - I am sure Jethmalani would find familiarity and defend his case too !!!
Quote:
These days especially in India the judiciary has become a farce and corruption reigns because of people like Ram Jethmalani who twist and malign the facts knowing what they are doing and also knowing that their actions may help in getting the guilty free.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
Advertise Contact Us Privacy Policy and Terms of Usage FAQ Canadian Desi © 2001 Marg eSolutions Site designed, developed and maintained by Marg eSolutions Inc. |