The current hypothetical case depicts a terrible crime committed by Sy Kopath. Nevertheless, as a defense attorney, it is essential to ensure that police and prosecution follow the strict protocol determined by the law, regardless of guilt (Pollock, 2016). Thus, even though I do believe that Sy Kopath deserves punishment, it is the ethical responsibility of the profession to guarantee a just process. Ethical issues are particularly complicated in such cases when the defendant’s guilt is evident and goes against the moral values of the attorney. Nevertheless, it is crucial to follow the protocol in regard to ethical issues, such as the responsibility to the client, conflicts of interest, zealous defense, and confidentiality.
In this particular situation, knowing that Sy Kopath is the criminal, I would attempt to settle the case by a plea bargain. Supported by the illegal procedure of ignoring Miranda’s right and forcing the defendant into confession, it might be possible to reduce the gravity of punishment. I firmly believe that every person has a right to a just process and legal protection. Therefore, it would make my decision easier from a moral perspective if I did not know that Sy Kopath was indeed the criminal. Nevertheless, it would not have changed my actions of recognizing the violation of the Miranda warning and forced confession, and my answer would stay the same. Lastly, I do not believe that the situation could be prevented in any way since Sy Kopath committed the crime purposefully. I would have preferred if the police did not ignore the Miranda warning, but it would not have prevented the crime itself. Ultimately, I would attempt to settle the case by a plea bargain on favorable conditions since every person should be allowed the just process, and Sy Kopath was stripped of this right.
Reference
Pollock, J. M. (2016). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal Justice (9th Edition). Cengage Limited.