Summary Of Michael Huemer's Argument

683 Words2 Pages

Michael Huemer makes an argument that claims that “it is morally wrong for lawyers to pursue legal outcomes that they themselves know to be unjust”. This argument goes outside the idea that lawyers can or should help out their guilty client get free, with, of course inside the boundaries of the legal system. So, the gist of Michael Huemer’s argument is basically: it is wrong for an attorney to knowingly aid their guilty client go free. When you think about it, Michael Huemer’s argument has a point. Usually, if an attorney knows that his and/or her client is guilty of whatever crime they had committed, it is should be seen as morally wrong for that attorney to seek out an outcome where his guilty client goes unpunished. In some way, I think …show more content…

The only other alternative to this argument Michael Huemer gives is that of severe over punishment. So here is my thought on this: is there some sort of loop hole where the attorney (knowing his client is guilty) can use to his advantage? Let us say a random attorney knows for a fact that the their client who is accused is actually guilty, but to ensure a conviction the evidence. It makes sense that the lawyer would seek out an acquittal, by showing that tampering with evidence should not be tolerated and allowed. It is shown that the integrity of the legal system is more important than the outcome of the case itself, even if the lawyer themselves do not believe in the legal system. The solution is that the lawyer ensure a conviction for the accused criminal. The problem with that notion is that criminals have the potential to reoffend the law. There is also the potential of failing to follow legal procedure. Lawyers should not applaud the government for messing up legal procedure, in doing so can potentially violates peoples rights. Michael Huemer is more focused with unjust advocacy. If you ask me, the act to ensure the integrity of the legal system is just

Open Document