One time when I was in high school, I was tempted to enroll in a pre-Law course after graduation. There was a small part of me that wanted to serve in the name of justice and all that blah we hear about in the media. My father often accused my reasoning as philosophically foolish, meaning he usually lost arguments when my logic get the better of him. 😀
Then, a quandary made the decision to back out easier. I was not sure whether I wanted to be a prosecutor or a defense attorney. Both roles appealed to me. What forced me to reconsider my choice is the thought that I could be required by consequences to be less accurate with the truth, okay, tell a lie.
It’s not the lying per se that concerned me but the result of it. Imagine if I was so good at defending a murderer that I proved him innocent in court? Or, I used fabricated evidence to pin down an innocent man to the electric chair? Those scenarios troubled me then.
Yesterday, I watched the lawyer of the so-called mastermind in the local pork-barrel scandal. He was interviewed on TV. He argued that his client should be given freedom to withdraw money from her frozen accounts apart from the supposed amount the court has pointed to as ill-gotten. He was so convincing that many people watching the interview would have accepted his argument as logical.
I winced while watching his pathetic reasoning. In simple terms, he wanted his client, a thief, to surrender the money she stole from the people while keeping the rest of her loot which he described as hard earned. Hello!!! His client began her ‘career’ while she was still poor: she admitted so in an interview she gave after her initial arrest. Who was telling the truth then? The lawyer or the client?
This type of squid tactics which often succeed in corruption trials diminish my faith in the system. Who should we blame for this miscarriage of justice?