Well, that title was one of my cheap cracks, I'm afraid. It's true that in many ways the law is an ass but the Volokh Conspiracy provide a tragic example in which the law was hog-tied by its own inviolable rules designed with the best intentions to safeguard individuals embroiled in criminal charges brought by the state.
Here, briefly, is the story. Some 26 years ago two young defence lawyers in the USA were appointed to defend a man likely to face a charge of murder. The man actually confessed his guilt to them, but then another man was charged for the offence in his place. The two lawyers were bound on pain of disbarment by the strict convention that safeguards client/lawyer privilege and were thus unable to say anything as the innocent man was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. He served 26 years and only now, on the death of the guilty man, have they been able to speak out. The Atlantic discusses some ways that might mitigate this dreadful impasse should it arise again and the comments to the Volokh post add some more.
All in all, one of those delicious moral dilemmas so beloved of novelists, playwrights and Hollywood film-makers - until, of course, you realise that an innocent man spent 26 years in jail!
Easy-peasy. Shoot the murdering bastard who had confessed to you, then spring the innocent guy. That way you don't violate professional "ethics" since your client is dead and you need suffer no guilt since the guy you murdered was himself a confessed murderer. You just have to be careful to ensure that no innocent man is charged with the murder you committed.
Posted by: dearieme | Monday, 10 March 2008 at 21:40
Thanks, 'DM', if only life was that simple ...
Posted by: David Duff | Monday, 10 March 2008 at 22:16