Jethmalani : Devil's Advocate

gaurav200x

gaurav200x

Gaurav Mittal
As you might be aware that Dr. ram jethmalani, one of India's brightest advocates should be fighting for Manu Sharma's defense in the Jessica Lal's murder case.

Do u think his action is justified morally? Even though, every individual has the right to hire the best advocates for their defense, but does it uphold the moral values and the respect we give on our judiciary, when the brightest lawyers try to save the culprits, rather than prosecuting them.

What's ur take on this issue? Let the big fight begin.

Those who are anxious to catch on can log on to CNN IBN and catch Jethmalani's interview as well Sardesi's comments in his blog.
 
well its really sad that d best of things r offered 2 d clearly wrong ppl....
moreover i jst dint like d way Mr. Jethmalani spoke with news reporters, insulting them wen they put forth their views on d case...
if he has d right 2 fight some one's case, it is d right of others 2 express their anguish.
 
dpka said:
well its really sad that d best of things r offered 2 d clearly wrong ppl....
moreover i jst dint like d way Mr. Jethmalani spoke with news reporters, insulting them wen they put forth their views on d case...
if he has d right 2 fight some one's case, it is d right of others 2 express their anguish.
Click to expand...
That is quite true! Even though Jethmalani's saying that it is the lawyer's duty is true... but duty should not mean it sidesteps ethics.... Doing something wrong and calling it ur duty doesnt make wrong ,right...
 
gaurav200x said:
That is quite true! Even though Jethmalani's saying that it is the lawyer's duty is true... but duty should not mean it sidesteps ethics.... Doing something wrong and calling it ur duty doesnt make wrong ,right...
Click to expand...

i agree with gaurav that jethmalani is going wrong
being india's one of the best advocate, i think he have forgot the basic of advocate even though i m not so much aware of law but atleast i know sum basics that advocate r meant to fight for the justice n being the senior advocate he shld not forget his basic its really going to affect his repport in future as he is called "pride of indian personalities"
 
jituashani said:
i agree with gaurav that jethmalani is going wrong
being india's one of the best advocate, i think he have forgot the basic of advocate even though i m not so much aware of law but atleast i know sum basics that advocate r meant to fight for the justice n being the senior advocate he shld not forget his basic its really going to affect his repport in future as he is called "pride of indian personalities"
Click to expand...

Absolute Crap...

You have given a gender twist to what is essentially the legal ethics of lawyers defending in a court of someone who is perceived or pronounced as guilty by lower courts. You have finally concluded by bringing ‘human’ factor to buttress your argument. Even if the lawyer is aware of the guilt of murder or rape or whatever, he cannot be found fault with for defending such persons. It is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt and for the defending lawyer to make the prosecution prove its case with valid arguments, unassailable evidence, and credible witnesses. It can be said that the defending lawyer is not only defending the accused but also the credibility and the integrity of the judicial system and the democratic ethos themselves. The whole edifice of our jurisprudence is built on the premise that it is better to have a few criminals escape punishment than sentence one innocent person. In fact the defending lawyer should not try to find the guilt but assume the innocence of the accused to argue the case forcefully and effectively without an inner feeling that the accused he is defending is actually guilty. Defence lawyers who take up such cases have a tough and emotionally difficult task more so in well known cases involving celebrities, powerful and garishly rich. In these days of media trial, the accused would be helpless against the power of police and prosecution unless assisted by able attorneys. It calls for tremendous grit and courage to handle unpopular cases where there is a public cry for condign punishment to the accused. Such lawyers are the bulwark protecting individual freedom and doing a noble service. But ultimately both women and men would want the truth to prevail and guilty to be punished severely without however the regret that the accused has been denied the best brains to defend him/her.
 
aadil said:
Absolute Crap...

You have given a gender twist to what is essentially the legal ethics of lawyers defending in a court of someone who is perceived or pronounced as guilty by lower courts. You have finally concluded by bringing ‘human’ factor to buttress your argument. Even if the lawyer is aware of the guilt of murder or rape or whatever, he cannot be found fault with for defending such persons. It is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt and for the defending lawyer to make the prosecution prove its case with valid arguments, unassailable evidence, and credible witnesses. It can be said that the defending lawyer is not only defending the accused but also the credibility and the integrity of the judicial system and the democratic ethos themselves. The whole edifice of our jurisprudence is built on the premise that it is better to have a few criminals escape punishment than sentence one innocent person. In fact the defending lawyer should not try to find the guilt but assume the innocence of the accused to argue the case forcefully and effectively without an inner feeling that the accused he is defending is actually guilty. Defence lawyers who take up such cases have a tough and emotionally difficult task more so in well known cases involving celebrities, powerful and garishly rich. In these days of media trial, the accused would be helpless against the power of police and prosecution unless assisted by able attorneys. It calls for tremendous grit and courage to handle unpopular cases where there is a public cry for condign punishment to the accused. Such lawyers are the bulwark protecting individual freedom and doing a noble service. But ultimately both women and men would want the truth to prevail and guilty to be punished severely without however the regret that the accused has been denied the best brains to defend him/her.
Click to expand...
I don't know whether u wrote this urself, or ccp from the net, but the literature was pretty good.

What u say is NOT agreeable in the case of an affluent day-time murderer. The sancity of judicial system lies in protecting the victim (in this case Jessica Lal)

If powerful lawyers like Jethmalani take up Sharma's case and manage to let shameless culprits like him go scot-free, then who would ever have faith in the judicial system. The faith comes through trust.... and the trust comes only when u don't defend culprits.

This would become a mascot for every criminal henceforth... So ppl like Dawood Ibrahim, Tiger Menon, Saddam Hussain and even Osama Bin Laden take take the help of magicians like Ram Jethmalani to help them murder few more thousands.

So then who will have faith that the judiciary is good for anything? Who will believe in non violence and take the help of the judicial system.... NO ONE !!

Mass Vandalism is what will be the consequence.....
 
well... dis thread is gettin interesting. this case is wide open 2 d public. though d accused can defend himself by hiring d best lawyers, is t really ethical 4 lawyers 2 protect d wrong wen d public is mad over it? n wat makes me fel bad is that jethmali being such a reputed lawyer may take d case but is passing statements 2 d media n being rude while defending his client... if he has d right 2 speak n defend anyone, d media has a right 2 speak against his act!
 
thanx 4 lettingus know A.J........ guys plsss such threads require ur own view points n u can types a few sentences 4 d others 2 knw ur thoughts.... no ccp pls!!
 
Alright, you guys can give some "Thanks" to my post too (a li'l reputation never hurt anyone) :aj1:


enigma, aadil.....Second time I'm doing a private-eye's job.
Next time I'm gonna charge Kartik for this :aj:
 
BTW, FWIW, Jethmalani is just displaying typical attention-seeking behaviour.

Like he's done all his life :aj:
 
A.J. said:
BTW, FWIW, Jethmalani is just displaying typical attention-seeking behaviour.

Like he's done all his life :aj:
Click to expand...
Dude u should have been there interviewing Jethmalani. We all could have received some classic doses AJ wani in action.... :aj1:
 
gaurav200x said:
Dude u should have been there interviewing Jethmalani. We all could have received some classic doses AJ wani in action.... :aj1:
Click to expand...

I thought Thapar did a pretty good job.

Though it all seemed slightly pre-meditated and stage-managed to me... :aj:
 
im astonished 2 c india's top lawyer fight a case which is open 2 d public n in clear favor of jessica lal............. this case is another example y india is still far behind even after having d best brains!
 
cutiesona2002 said:
jethmalani has the rite to defend his client..i dont know why u guyz are making a big fuss
Click to expand...


No one's making a fuss.....or does a discussion sound like a new idea to you?? :aj:


And you just need to look at the list of clients Jethmalani has defended to get an idea of how he deliberately goes out of his way to court controversy....classic attention-seeking behaviour :aj:
 
Manu sharma has the complete right to approch a good lawyer (rather the best) lawyer for his deffence. But then it is Jethmalani's choice to accept or reject the proposal. Moreover, Jethmalani is a social element along with a professional lawyer so it is his social responsibility to support Jessica by not supporting Manu. But utimately choice is his!
 
Well!!
Upon reading the interview... Strange element of Betrayal is visible in the language of advocate. He is perfectly aware of what he is so supportive of is not at all relevant and he is going to be proved wrong very soon. What i can see in the interview is constant frustration on the account of the advocate and hence putting forward his distorted approach with anger and no strong base. As it has been said that Justice Prevails, we gona witness the same in the near future and the day is not far when such hyped advocates wil be shown the mirror.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top