Introduction
The prosecution must establish their case beyond a reasonable doubt to get a conviction in the United States. Even though this is a high bar, most legal systems are established upon a premise that it is preferable to let a criminal individual go free rather than condemn an innocent civilian wrongfully. Criminal defense lawyers have an ethical obligation to aggressively defend their clients, regardless of their personal feelings about the case or the outcome. In practice, this implies that criminal defense lawyers must do all in their power to argue for their clients, even if they consider their clients to be guiltless. Many philosophers have prevented different arguments regarding this problem. To contextualize these philosophical arguments, this essay examines the works of Arthur Applbaum’s “Ethics for Adversaries,” Terry Cooper’s “The responsible administrator,” and John Rawl’s “Justice as fairness.”
Discussion
At its most basic level, ethics is a collection of moral principles. In ethics, well-established standards of right and wrong serve as guidelines for human behavior. People generally acquire ethical values through various social contexts, such as their parents’ home or church. While most people learn about right and wrong during their childhood, moral development continues throughout a person’s life and occurs in stages as they age. A person’s perspectives and life experiences affect how they interpret, apply, and balance fundamental ethical principles. It is possible to agree on the evil of murder but disagree on the morality of abortion, as people have varying conceptions of what constitutes human hood.
To begin with, ethics refers to a body of well-established moral standards that define what individuals should do in terms of their rights, responsibilities, and benefits to the community, justice, and particular virtue. For instance, ethics refers to the standards that impose reasonable obligations to abstain from rape and theft, slander, violence, and fraud, among other things. These criteria also include those that promote the values of honesty and compassion and the rights to life, bodily integrity, and privacy, all of which are defined as ethical standards. Such ethical standards can be relied upon due to their consistency and solid foundation. Ethics is a conceptual framework that individuals can use to guide their thinking and decision-making in various situations.
Second, ethics is the examination and formulation of one’s ethical principles. Moreover, morality, emotions, laws, and societal standards all deviate. To remain acceptable and well-founded, one’s standards must be reviewed regularly. Ethics requires us to constantly examine our moral ideals and those of others and ensure that our actions and those of the institutions we create are consistent with those principles. In most countries, ethical norms are broader and less formal than legal standards. While ethical and legal principles are comparable, they are not identical. Both legal and unethical behaviors are possible concurrently.
However, the concepts “ethics” and “morality,” on the other hand, are inextricably intertwined. Moralists and ethicists have varying notions of morality and ethics. Public relations ethics are much more than rules or a series of “if-then” statements; they are a way of life. Indeed, it is the art and science of arriving at an informed judgment based on solid convictions. More profound convictions are shaped by an individual’s knowledge of the industry, their responsibilities to it, the sector’s characteristics, and their moral framework. Moral reasoning requires an in-depth knowledge of one’s moral convictions.
Codes, policies, and concepts are necessary and helpful but do not necessarily provide solutions for every ethical dilemma. In a disagreement, ethical notions must be applied to interpret and intervene thoroughly. This requires students to have the ability to analyze, appraise, and apply a variety of research rules and make judgments and act ethically in a different situation. Consider the administration case in navigating to the appropriate local political authority and interacting with administrative employees such as the Peace Corps. For instance, before one can comprehend the concept of right and wrong, we must first understand how ethical principles might aid in our understanding of human growth. A single ethical norm is improbable, given that people act according to their diverse purposes, making a universal standard of ethics difficult to come by.
Understanding the Concept of Right and Wrong
According to social norms, making the right decision is following the rules of fair treatment and morals. Opposing these principles is doing evil deeds. The right path is acceptable, while the wrong path is considered inappropriate or unacceptable. Regardless of how “legal” something is, it does not always imply that it is correct. Concerns about the morality of various behaviors stem from a desire to exert as little impact as possible on others. For instance, why not take advantage of the fact that doing something considered wrong can obtain your desired outcome? As a general rule, most religious motivations for ethical conduct involve a connection between morality and a particular object of concern. Even if God exists and condemns evil, his prohibition does not render the conduct illegal. God forbids it because it is immoral. Empathy for others is the bedrock of morality, and there is no alternative to it. Not everyone is concerned about other people, and those concerned about individuals they know are not the entire world’s population. Comparing the motivations of different individuals and societies over time casts doubt on the existence of universal morality. In this extreme version, social and cultural norms govern the most fundamental definitions of right and evil. More objective criteria must be used to evaluate a society’s moral code; nevertheless, this standard is also ambiguous. The universality and objectivity of morality are its core concerns. While it is believed that we all possess the capacity for objective motivation, it appears to be buried deep within each of us. Individuals act for a variety of reasons, making morality challenging to justify.
The argument against redistributive taxation is that economic transactions that result in inequality are not intrinsically bad. Thus, governments should refrain from interfering in the lives of individuals who do not intend to harm others. It is necessary to combine redistributive taxation and social assistance programs. A universal government tasked with regulating global transactions would almost certainly be a bad government, complicating the issue of global inequality and justice.
Application of Ethical Concepts to the Situation
Regarding the adversary legal system, lawyers are permitted to present the case for what they know to be false and advocate for causes that they know to be incorrect, as long as they do so within the norms. For example, competition for goods and services, competition for labor and capital, competition for corporate control, internal competition among managers, electoral politics, interest-group pluralism, constitutionally separated powers, commercial and political advertising, investigative and advocacy journalism, and the marketplace of ideas are all examples of competition. Concerning a for-profit and managed health care system, the profession of medicine is increasingly becoming an adversarial institution. I believe that, despite the variations in their characteristics, these adversary settings have more in common than is often recognized. To present an overview of “important offices” in politics and the professions, I will use examples from the legal, business, and political realms and from government and medicine.
The opposition put out some valid arguments to justify their egregious conduct; nevertheless, not all of them are persuasive. Political politicians and campaign strategists are well-known for engaging in sleight of hand and purposefully falsifying their opponents’ records to ruin their opponents’ reputations in the eyes of the public. The statements are given in groups of two. On the other hand, it is incorrect to confuse the members of each pair. It is because they are trying to harm you that your adversaries are on your side. The ability to analyze all of the moral reasons available to one might be hampered when interacting with opponents, who act in ways that exclude or exaggerate some of the essential ones, making it difficult to defend one’s position. What exactly is the justification for this division of moral responsibilities? Is it possible to participate in adversary strategies that cause harm to others without violating their rights? This is particularly true of activities that, if carried out outside of one’s adversary role, would unlawfully infringe the rights of others. It is common for adversaries to justify their actions by stating merely a few justifications and arguing that they have the legal authority to do so. The ability to work at cross-purposes, pursue conflicting objectives, and attempt to sabotage each other’s plans are frequent obligations for professional and political actors alike. The legal procedure involves both Democratic and Republican presidential contenders, secretaries of state and national security advisers, and prosecutors and defense counsel.
It is not uncommon for industrial manufacturers and environmental regulators to directly conflict with one another in their respective fields of expertise. Likewise, investigative journalists and official sources and physicians with insurance companies are frequently in direct conflict with one another. One is presumed to be accurate while the other is assumed to be incorrect when two people have opposing moral goals; alternately, one is assumed to be acting better while the other is believed to be acting worse when two people have conflicting moral goals. Although onlookers frequently feel that both actors should act in the manner they do, even when what one should do clashes with what the other should do, this is not always the case. Indeed, onlookers commonly feel that both actors should behave how they do. Or, to put it another way, how can it be anticipated that two political or professional actors in the same scenario will take opposing positions? Is it possible for two persons with opposed objectives to collaborate if they both have compelling reasons? What makes one person’s motives for doing superior to another’s is not immediately apparent.
One response is widespread in both unintentional and planned support for opposing institutions: denial. Unless one is a professional or a public figure expected to make comprehensive judgments about the morality or legality of your conduct, you should refrain from doing so. Your values, interests, and facts are only expected to be considered in a restricted or partial manner. There are only a few compelling arguments for taking action. Because the professional is excluded from the complete deliberative concerns, the concept of role relativity can describe the pursuit of distinct moral goals in different roles. In addition, it is vital to remember that when acting on behalf of others, the professional cannot consider even the most local of deliberative considerations, such as the requirement for person neutrality. When many adversarial actors engage for limited reasons in concert, the institution of multiple actors acting for limited reasons appropriately considers the broad range of motivations, values, interests, and facts pertinent to the issue at hand, which is acceptable in the aggregate. A variation on the “division of moral work argument” is used to support these institutions’ operation, including the competitive market, the judicial system, and electoral politics, among others.
These arguments are founded on the notion that if opponents concentrate their efforts on a small number of specific concerns, a win-win situation will be created for everyone. While the technique by which a specific system achieves equilibrium differs from system to system, at least three vivid pictures are employed to convey this concept to the reader. Rather than thinking of professionals or professions at odds with one another, we think of specialized actors who pay attention to specific interests, values, and reasons to produce social value in a more efficient and possibly more harmonious manner than we think of professionals or professions at odds with one another. This has resulted in the addition of a competitive element to this specialization. The objectives and efforts of each participant must be carefully balanced against the goals and efforts of the other participant’s opposing goals and efforts. No one can succeed with discretion when faced with competition and market reaction, and no one’s actions have any impact on the outcome of the situation. Furthermore, the positive claims provided for the equilibria are also distinct from one another.
The strongest equilibrium arguments advanced by professionals imply that all actors should concentrate on a restricted range of reasons for action rather than a large variety of reasons for action in all situations. First-best assertions are regularly made due to competitive markets and the moral concept of ethical egoism. The conditional division of labor argument asserts that as long as certain actors pursue restricted or partisan aims, all other actors should and vice versa. Conditional reasoning is widely employed in the justification of military or legal commitments. According to the weakest form of the argument, partisan institutions are capable of anticipating and mitigating the harmful implications of their activities. It is necessary to specify an equilibrium mechanism via which partial acts can be claimed to serve impartial goods. It is also necessary to demonstrate that the circumstances for an excellent equilibrium conclusion exist. What path do manipulative and deceitful commercial or political advertising strategies take to achieve market efficiency or establish legitimate governance? Suppose the conclusion that doing so is beneficial follows from the suggestion to act based on merely filtered and partial evidence. In that case, an argument must be presented to support this conclusion. The fact that the marketplace of ideas has various conflicting opinions is admirable. Still, it does not provide anyone with a compelling reason to embrace a wrong belief, and it certainly does not justify the dissemination of false or misleading information. In regards to good social organization, individuals within institutions are not compelled to follow the moral reasoning of their peers. In particular, when the activity in question is carried out by a member of the institution’s staff, the institution’s potential to enable conduct that deceives, coerces or otherwise violates persons is significantly increased.
John Rawl’s “Justice as Fairness”
According to American philosopher John Rawls, justice and fairness are inextricably linked notions. In “Justice as Fairness,” Rawls spent considerable time refining his concept. Rawls argues that justice is a social rather than a personal concept (39). Justice is predicated on the notion of justice. To be fair, no one can be coerced or intimidated into accepting what seem to be false statements. This implies that the institution must turn subjective claims into objective truth. This must be an open and transparent process in which the merits of both parties’ arguments are considered. As a consequence, mutual acknowledgment of claims is necessary for fairness. Therefore, John Rawls suggests that there are two ways to define justice.
The first principle is that “everyone who engages in or is impacted by an activity has an equal right to the broadest liberty possible for all” (Rawls 42). As long as their liberty does not jeopardize the liberty of others who are members of or impacted by the system, those individuals should enjoy the maximum amount of liberty possible. Bear in mind that this amount of liberty is available to everyone within or influenced by the system, not just a few individuals. Individual liberty is guaranteed to everyone participating in this situation on an equal basis. The liberty principle is a term that refers to this concept.
Second, “inequality is arbitrary unless there is a reasonable expectation that they would work out in the long run for the advantage of all, and provided that the positions or offices to which they are attached or from which they may be attained are open to all” (Rawls 42). According to this remark, inequality is not regarded as a general rule. Individuals of all races and social classes should be able to benefit from or bear the costs of these benefits and disadvantages. As a result, the only way to obtain these obligations and rewards is to win a fair competition against other rivals and be evaluated only on your merits. According to the principle of “fair equality of opportunity,” any position or office should be open to anyone who can demonstrate their merit in a fair competition.
However, the rule of thumb is that departures from it are not unheard of. There should be no reason the system cannot increase everyone’s liberty without generating permanent harm or conflict; otherwise, the system would be unreasonable. Inequities can be allowed as long as some exceptions to the rule can be made. A strong justification must exist for departing from the rule of equal liberty, not simply the practice itself. Consider this: if you and your siblings agree to complete some significant cleaning by the end of the month, your parents will allow you and your siblings to use the additional car on Saturdays. Propose an equitable division of household responsibilities between you and your elder siblings. As a result, your brother’s theatrical organization requires him to stay late at school, but your sister’s argument team requires her to work extra hours. As a result, they recommend that you shoulder a greater portion of the obligations in exchange for the ability to choose the place of your every fourth Saturday getaway. As a result, you and your siblings gain greater freedom by temporarily taking on greater responsibility. Consider how this arrangement helps everyone involved, not just those with a vested interest. Additionally, one benefits the most from the current situation because you are the least advantaged party. Exceptions, Rawls believed, should be permitted wherever possible. According to the principle of difference, any deviation from equal treatment should benefit those who are least fortunate.
The ideas of equal opportunity and difference are merged in Rawls’ second principle, commonly referred to as the “equality” principle. Because of the need for clarity, equality is frequently separated into these two distinct principles. Furthermore, Rawls asserted that similar conditions should be treated in the same way by all persons in the same situation. As he stated in the declaration, “Practice must make an explicit guarantee in advance so that no one is allowed to adjust the canons of a legitimate complaint to satisfy their special condition, and then reject them when they no longer serve their intended purpose.” The use of exclusions against those who requested them in the first place, provided they were adequately justified, is necessary to guarantee that any exclusions given were lawful. The philosopher John Rawls provides a thought experiment to demonstrate how a natural notion of justice might have come to be. Individuals are unlikely to get angry unless they believe that others have been treated unfairly or that they have been slighted themselves when they observe or learn that others are in better situations than they are. Although there have been countless alterations, the same guiding themes have remained.
John Rawls argues that justice is more than mere efficiency and that the utilitarian definition of justice needs to be questioned. According to him, fairness reigns supreme in the realm of justification. Thirty years later, that sense of justice is still alive and strong in my heart. We frequently disagree about whether or not specific individuals are deserving of punishment or reward. We are dedicated to the realization of liberty and justice for all. We become enraged when similar issues are addressed in various ways. According to Rawls’ definition of justice, a fair society can be found in every aspect of modern life today, including politics (Rawls 8). The execution of ethical values in various countries is included in ethical dilemmas. Given adversary positions and behaviors in public and professional life, the ethics of opponents is a philosophical examination of the explanations given to justify those positions and activities. If it were not for the function of the antagonistic professions (lawyers, merchants, and government officials), they would be ethically bound to cause harm to others in their daily lives. Institutions of resistance can be found everywhere, and the justifications offered to sustain them apply to all professions.
Arthur Applbaum “Ethics for Adversaries”
Applbaum’s central argument is that the adversary careers, law, entrepreneurship, and governance, among others, often assert moral authority to violate people in manners that would be ethically unacceptable if not for their occupational function. To put this in perspective, he contextualizes the essence of moral authority in the critical governance structures in society. According to Applbaum, X legally rules Y only if X’s leadership of Y recognizes and safeguards Y’s liberty over time. This is the situation only if X is a liberated collective actor that qualifies a free Y as a constitutive part of that group (74). When this broad concept is applied to the contemporary democracy, the following notion of political validity emerges: a nation-government state can lawfully govern its people only when:
- it acknowledges and defends their autonomy,
- is a free collective actor,
- regards its people as constituent participants.
Citizens are inwardly independent if they have sufficient levels of the capabilities that make up the agency. These capabilities are the ability to think about why one should act, pick an action based on that evaluation, and carry out the action one has selected since they have selected it. Citizens are outwardly autonomous if they have non-dominational freedom. To be lawful, a state must guarantee that its individuals have the rights and freedoms they need to promote and express agency and safeguard them from unwarranted state intrusion in their affairs. Moreover, the state should be both (internally) self-determining and (externally) autonomous; that is, a collective actor that is not susceptible to dominance by other (group) actors. To be an independent group actor, a group must have a sufficient number of free people capable of conceiving and acting independently. The necessary composition may emerge from intertwined goals and strategies, representation and emulation, processes and organizational frameworks, or a combination of all three.
Ultimately, citizens acquire membership of the liberated collective actor that rules them by agreement, meeting the concept of fair play, or since participation is required. In other words, a vital medium to an agent’s pragmatic devotion, which they will not or cannot abandon. Regular persons must participate in the collective’s use of agency to be resident participants. Thus, in an unspecified sense, a lawful state is one in which individuals are independent because they govern themselves. In conjunction with the preceding assertion that legitimate government requires recognition for and defense of fundamental human rights, Applbaum offers a solution to the puzzle of resolving personal autonomy and governmental power. Citizens are as independent as they can be when controlled by a free group agent made up of their free members (Applbaum 255). Appropriately enough, Applbaum concentrates the bulk of his writing on laying out the governmental validity consequences of the free group agent concept.
Additionally, Applbaum contends that it is not impossible nor illegal for external agents to compel an individual to be free. The latter assertion is predicated on two critical assumptions. A political group actor may be treated with a paternalistic attitude while its participants are not. Firstly, paternalistic treatment is permitted if the political group actor’s ability to act independently is weak or nonexistent. Secondly, paternalistic handling of a political group actor is permitted if its agent ability is undeveloped or if individuals specifically aimed by the paternalistic treatment do not form a true group actor. Similarly, in situations in which a state’s citizens’ motives are not taken into account, when citizens’ choices are not based on those factors, or when members’ actions are not based on those preferences, paternalistic treatments that target these flaws in group agency are no more morally reprehensible than treatments that target comparable flaws in children.
Similarly, Applbaum believes that a true democracy must adhere to freedom, fairness, and agency norms to be considered a free group agent composed of free people. According to the liberty ideal, all citizens must enjoy an appropriate set of fundamental rights and freedoms compatible with a comparable setting for everyone. The equality premise implies that all people have a sufficient and fair ethical ability to select who implements their government’s moral authorities on their behalf. Lastly, the agency notion demands that the government establish an autonomous group agent sensitive to the concerns of its constituents (Applbaum 156). Applbaum concludes, based on these reasons, that the conceptual interpretations of the adversarial system defense are likewise in jeopardy.
The adversary system defense’s constituting the definition of justice is challenged by rival interpretations linked with rights-based normative ethics that adapt the needs of fairness independently to each relationship between individuals. These arguments indicate that a lawyer’s partiality for a client who infringes the liberties of a third party cannot be merely countered by advantages accruing elsewhere in the adversarial justice system, as the adversary framework justification would allow it.
Adversaries use claims concerning game rules, fair treatment, permission, the social production of deeds and participants, tangible benefits in balance, and the legal legitimacy of agencies to justify undesirable actions. Applbaum thinks that these justifications are weaker than previously believed and do not ethically justify a large proportion of the violations committed by professionals and public officials. Typically, entities and the responsibilities they establish are incapable of issuing new moral licenses to engage in conduct that would be ethically impermissible.
Terry Cooper “The Responsible Administrator”
Cooper observes early in his work that the concept of “responsibility” is a very new invention. Because of the obligations and latitude in their jobs, Cooper contends that public officials have an entirely different set of ethical considerations than the general population. They can make responsible decisions using their free will due to their ethical standards and values. It is important to remember that administrators are first and foremost citizens. However, they are citizens because of their positions as professionals and public servants, and they have specific responsibilities. According to Cooper, public officials must improve their ability to think critically about ethical issues to build their working professional ethics in their respective positions. No public administrator can see beyond the limitations of a single event to evaluate it unless they can generalize and hypothesize based on their previous experiences.
A critical component of this research is examining the integration of ethics with organizational behaviors and structures. Cooper’s book, The Responsive Administrator, has the first chapter in which he begins his in-depth research of the topic. We can all agree that his contributions to our understanding of this subject are considerable. According to him, the intellectual road that leads to and supports ethical behavior cannot, for example, be considered in isolation from other considerations. Throughout the chapter, the author discusses a total of four primary subjects in great detail. These considerations are essential in creating an atmosphere conducive to ethical behavior. Individual characteristics, organizational culture, organizational structure, and social expectations are all examples of the notion at work in this situation.
A detailed examination of our daily lives reveals many unique events relevant to this issue. It is normal for managers to voice misgivings while appraising their employees’ capacity to meet specified goals. In general, the majority of people in organizations fail to act or perform in a way consistent with the organization’s main objectives. Instead, it is common to find a reluctance to experiment and break new ground (Cooper, 161). Aside from that, it appears that managers cannot distinguish between different types of reckless behavior. Leaders may appear irresponsible since their obligations and job focus are not related. When dealing with this hazard, it is critical to keep the ideas discussed above in mind. Individual qualities are, first and foremost, a component of a variety of ethical ideas that are available. This aspect impacts an individual’s ability to make ethical decisions as well as their psychological attitude, which are both critical. This feature also illustrates the significance of values and professional ideals in one’s life.
It is necessary to acquire a critical thinking approach when spotting moral flaws in persons and political organizations. Furthermore, it is necessary to determine the factors that influence the moral priorities of civic responsibility to fulfill them (Cooper, 168). As reflected in charitable acts, optimism, courage, and justice are among the moral traits required for this endeavor to be successful. Structure plays a significant part in creating an ethically acceptable working environment within a company or organization. It reflects the level of openness, cooperation, and potential for dispute inside the organization. Effective participation methods are supported by an organizational structure that has been specified. This is crucial where there is a need to implement strategic management strategies straightforwardly. This is crucial when it comes to straightforwardly implementing strategic management strategies.
A variety of studies have found that effective organizational structures are associated with higher levels of employee motivation, well-being, and productivity (Cooper, 174). As previously stated, participatory approaches in critical decision-making initiatives can be practical tools for attaining success in the long run. With the help of this approach, public policy can be better designed and implemented. The culture of a firm and the expectations of the broader community are important factors in shaping ethical behavior. It is possible to develop an ethical system when an organization recognizes the existence of a strong, congruent, and transforming culture. Humans must never underestimate the importance of role models, social norms, and symbolic representations. The benefits of having a positive business culture are something we can witness every day in action.
In the same way, societal norms have a tremendous impact on individuals’ ethical behavior. Societies can employ various tools to keep a watch on their systems, including public engagement, rules, and policies. Organizational cultures are being molded by societal norms and external factors, among other things (Cooper, 183). Sociological limitations are complicated, and they influence the dynamics of society’s expectations in a particular situation. In addition, the influence of public policies, customs, and regulations on corporate cultures in certain contexts has not reduced in the past few decades. As the author points out, several factors influence ethical behavior in business, including the presence of a competitor. In addition to becoming better individuals, public managers who adopt an ethical attitude also become fairer and more sympathetic in their decisions and their procedures to arrive at those conclusions. Using ethical reasoning to make decisions helps administrators become better leaders. It provides them with more leeway and insight into what lies ahead rather than simply looking at the current situation from a strategic approach. Most of the time, while making judgments that affect the general public, public officials should consider their morality.
Terry Cooper contends that the lawyer has a responsibility to serve the client because the system requires that persons defend even criminal clients. That system, in turn, contributes to the administration of justice. John Rawls maintains that justice is predicated on the idea of fairness throughout his writings. This implies that the institution is responsible for taking individual claims and converting them into objective reality in the actual world. A straightforward approach that considers the merits of both parties’ allegations must be followed. To put it another way, Rawls would argue that everyone, even criminals, should be given a chance to defend themselves and have their views heard and confirmed, whether they are correct or incorrect. Lawyers, according to Applbaum, can only do this if they are certain that the system’s norms are conducive to the administration of justice. A consequence of this is that people may sometimes stop operating in the capacity of an attorney and instead act on their moral notions about how others should be treated. Copper and Rawl’s arguments are right, whereas Applbaum’s claim complicates the relationship between the lawyer and their client.
Conclusion
Making decisions on ethical difficulties regularly helps officials develop a working ethic, or “character,” even if the decision is to ignore the issues in question. The decision to do nothing is rooted in the acceptance of personal responsibility. Everyone thinks and acts per their moral principles, regardless of their background. However, in a democratic society, public officials have an additional responsibility that most of the population does not share: the responsibility to answer for their actions. They must take not only action but also justify their actions. They can, of course, make excuses for their actions, give half-truths, distort the truth, and lie. If officials want to conduct themselves ethically, they must be aware that they will be required to explain their actions to the general public, their superiors, the press, and the courts. When making decisions, ethical considerations must be taken into account, or the decision-makers must be prepared to do so if asked to do so. In other words, unlike the majority of the population, public officials cannot simply go with their gut instincts. It is not enough for someone to act ethically; it is also necessary for them to comprehend what they are doing and express it to others in a truthful manner.
There is a critical distinction between factual and legal culpability. Actual culpability refers to what the defendant did, while legal guilt refers to what the prosecution can establish against the defendant. Whatever crime the accused committed, he is not lawfully culpable until the prosecution establishes sufficient evidence to convince a court to condemn him. However, the accused and their attorney must agree on the specifics. The lawyer must not mislead the court by describing explicitly what the accused did and how they did not do anything, even if the lawyer is aware the accused did. If the accused does not desire to accept guilt, the attorney cannot do so. Consistent with the views of Cooper and Rawls, defense attorneys have an ethical obligation to aggressively defend all clients, even those they feel will be convicted on the facts and those they feel are legally blameless. A robust defense is required to safeguard the innocent and guarantee that courts and people have the last say on who is culpable of an offense. Ultimately, every person in the United States is guaranteed fair trials and the right to legal representation under the United States Constitution.
Works Cited
Applbaum, Arthur I. Ethics for Adversaries: The Morality of Roles in Public and Professional Life. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2015.
Cooper, Terry L. The responsible administrator: An approach to ethics for the administrative role. John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
Rawls, John. Justice as fairness: A restatement. Harvard University Press, 2001.