,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
France's Boulevard Voltaire weighs in, correctly bvoltaire.fr/a-harvard-un-t…. "Toute tentative d’assimiler un avocat à la faute de son client est odieuse. Oui, la noblesse de l’avocat est bien de servir loyalement les intérêts de son client, et seulement ceux-ci.
"D’autres sont en charge de la justice et de l’équité, pas lui. L’avocat qui sauve la tête ou la mise de son client coupable fait très bien son travail, quelque déplaisir qu’en éprouvent les parties civiles, le ministère public, la société elle-même.
"S’il se sert du prétexte d’une erreur de procédure, eh bien, il ne fallait pas commettre cette erreur. Sans avocat, la Justice ne saurait être qu’une parodie." Exact.
"Any attempt to equate a lawyer with the his clients' mistakes is odious. Yes, the nobility of the lawyer is that he serve the interests of his client, and only those interests, loyally. Others are in charge of justice and equity, not him.
The lawyer who saves his client's head or his liberty is doing his job very well, whatever displeasure the civil parties, the public prosecutor, or the society itself feels. ... Without a lawyer, justice can only be a travesty."
We shouldn't have to explain this to Harvard students. When Harvard interviews prospective students, don't they ask questions meant to help them assess whether the candidate has spent any time thinking about how America works?
Don't they ask themselves whether the candidate has at least read the Constitution? These students will go on to hold powerful jobs; that they clearly have no use for the 6th Amendment is really sinister.
