Posted on: 29-02-08 10:53:05
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Delhi/Uphaar_case_Jethmalani_starts_defending_Ansal_brothers/articleshow/2827477.cms
Jethmalani is a figure who is respectfully hated by Indian public.
He is one big brain who has mostly been in news for defending people on the wrong side!
He has seen critisim from all corners of society for doing this including his own family but this old man won't listen.
He has a history of defending alledged killers (killers of former prime minister Indira Gandhi;Manu Sharma:Jessica lal murder case), Harshad Mehta & ketan parekh and now ansal Brothers of the horrendus Uphaar case!!!
He is a Ravan who is called Ram.
He's a lawyer who's just doing his job. Doesn't matter which side of the bench he sits, at the end of the day he's only a professional. Someone would've fought for Ansals, and all those he got the cases for - then why not him. Whoever elevated him to the demi-God status is beyond my words here. He's just a professional, and not God. He is being criticized for nothing - then what's with those currupt Politicians who are in the limelight everyday, the bribe mongering public servants, beaurocrats, etc.?
Ethically wrong is always wrong - no matter what. However, India is a free country where anyone could approach any lawyer to take up their case. Someone has to represent those liars, criminals, thugs as well - and thy name is Lawyer. Be it a celebrity one (such as R. Jeth.) or someone small benchwala from Patiala Court (Delhi).
What would you call the ethics of a person who defends the wrong knowing them to be on wrong - eg Manu Sharma ??? Un ethical lawyers twist / distort facts and rules to serve their purpose .
With that respect maybe the recent kidney doctor was also just a 'professional' doing his job and helping the needy. ???
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fido.
For our justice system to work both sides have to be adequately represented. Its the job of the other side to dig through any spin and misinformation so that justice is truly served.
If this was not the case, theres no need of the courts. Just declare someone guilty because the cops said so.
Good lawyers are similarly expected to do their jobs be the client the victim or their perpetrator. This is the only way the courts will work as they are intended to.
If we demanded that all the lawyers chose 'ethically' then we would be already considering someone guilty. Whats the need of the courts then? Are we going to decide that doctors should 'ethically' decide to not to care for/operate on rapists or terrorists or other assorted alleged vermin?
Good lawyers representing either side are actually required safeguards so that its left to the courts to decide guilt or innocence and not just a 'feeling' of the majority. They see to it that there is enough information to prove guilt or innocence conclusively.
Yes in spite of these safeguards, sadly innocents are sometimes sentenced and guilty sometimes go free. Its obviously not perfect but there are no perfect alternatives either.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
For one doctors' ethics or a cook's ethics would be different from that of a lawyer's when legality and justice is concerned as the former do not impress law or judgment of the system but the latter does .
For two - there s a fine line b/w good and bad , right and wrong . I agree that all suspects / accused need representation , but what would you call a lawyer who spins out untrue theories , distort facts & gets witnesses killed /turned hostile just for the sake of 'winning the case' . They are aplenty of them and Ram Jethmalani tops the list . It is because of such lawyers that Manu Sharma was acquitted once till there was a social backlash and the judiciary was forced to re open the case .
The emphasis of a lawyer should be to bring out the truth and not argue for the sake of winning . Unfortunately it happens otherwise in most cases as lawyers are more concerned with their reputation & money involved rather than securing justice. Quuite similar to doctors who practice ulterior methods of earning.
Having said that I realize that we have treaded off the real question which should be - Is Ram Jethmalani a corrupt lawyer and I feel 'yes'. But to each his own.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fido.
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?
According to me a good lawyer is supposed to represent his client.
The job of the defense lawyer is to defend his client. If he cannot he should not take up the case.
The job of the prosecution is to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the accused is guilty.
Whenever a guilty person goes free it is as much the fault of the prosecution, for not doing their job....even if it is to cut though lies and deceit.
****This is exactly the safeguard that is meant to save innocents from climbing the gallows or being wrongly imprisoned. ****
Its not the lawyers(prosecution or defense) job to decide what the truth is. Thats left to the judge and jury(if/when there is one). The lawyers are to put their personal convictions aside once they take on the case. Just as a doctor is to put aside personal convictions while treating their patient.
Justice is served once both sides do their jobs perfectly.
As for Jethmalani- All i can say is that he seems to do his job better than the opposing team. If he is corrupt...I don't know.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
btw: I think Jethmalanis take on it is the same as mine
Sagarika Ghose: But what makes you so convinced about the innocence of Manu Sharma?
Ram Jethmalani: I dont have to convince myself. I am only convinced that the man is entitled to a fair trial. He is entitled to the services of a good lawyer. Courts will decide and no Pressman, no editor or (television crew) will decide.
http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/25393/the-press-is-talking-bull-it-cant-be-the-judge.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
