The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1912-08-03
MORAL GUILT AND LEGAL CON-
VICTION.

This question often arises among
1aymen concerning the extent to
which lawyer is justified in exerting
himself in behalf of an accused per-
son whom he knows or believers to
be morally guilty of a crime; and
many persons are not able to con-
ceive of an honest man putting forth
his greatest efforts to have such
client acquitted of the charge. Much
OF this feeling is due to miscon-
ception of the province of criminal
procedure; and to the failure to care
fully distinguish between moral guilt
and legal conviction.
At the outset, says the Inter-Moun-
tain Catholic, it is we'll to bear in
mind that the rules of law are but
human; that it is impossible that they
should be more than the work of man,
with all his limitations and Imperfect
tons, in an attempt to formulate
code which merely approximates JUS
tice. The law can not regulate the
spiritual side of man; but deals with
his external wrongs against the
state. AS a result of centuries of
study and experience, man has laid
down certain rules which can be vio-
lated only at the risk of punishment.
In formulating these rules, the law
makers have always been confronted
with two great problems, namely, the
rights of the state and the rights of
the Individual. And each is accorded
certain safeguards. 1t is because of
the safeguards accorded the indiyidu-
al that the question as to a lawyers
duty in criminal cases becomes COM
paratively easy of solution. The &C
cused is surrounded on all sides by
rules which make his conviction diff
ficult and compel the state to estab-
lish his guilt under all the rules that
have been formulated for his pro-
lection
Up to the time of conviction, the
guilty man has just the same rights
under our law as the innocent man:
and he is surrounded by the same
rules. Man is not punished merely
because he committed certain crime,
but rather because he has been leg
ally convicted of the crime. No legal
odium attaches to the individual until
he has been convicted according to
law; and then the legal odium is the
same whether the man is guilty or
innocent. 1t follows, of course, that
occasionally an innocent man is pun
ished and often a guilty man escapes.
The former is punished, not because
of his moral guilt, but because after
applying all the rules in his favor he
has been convicted. The latter es-
capes, not because of his innocence,
but because in taking advantage of
all rules provided for his protection,
he is permitted to go unpublished. 1t
is unfortunate that such a case should
ever arise, but it shows merely that
it is impossible in every case to ad-
minister exact justice to the state and
the individual.
Moreover, it is generally conceded
that the principle of our law which
presumes all men to be innocent of
the charge until proven guilty is just
one. The accused is to be given a
trial by jury, and his interests are
to be protected by supposedly i'm
partial court. Why, them should a
lawyer entertain any conscientious
scruples in defending a man whom he
knows or believes to be morally
guilty of a crime. If the lawyer
should treat the accused as being con-
victed before trial, he would be plac-
ing himself in a position of both
judge and jury, and would be permit
ting his personal feelings and personal
ideals of moral guilt to influence him
to an extent not warranted by strict
legal theory. He would be casting an
odium on the individual that should
come only after legal conviction.
If a lawyer should permit his per
sonal opinion as to the guilt of the
accused, to deter him from perform
ing his duty where the freedom OIL
life of an individual is at stake, his
action would be most contemplate
Instead of Sinking his duty, he should
exercise his talents to the best of his
ability in seeing that his client has
every protection that the law in
tended that he should have.
Therefore, when a lawyer defends
a person whom he believes to be NOR
ally guilty, instead of doing an act
not strictly in good conscience, he is
on the contrary, performing one o.
the highest duties that man is called
upon to perform. If ony censure is
due, it is due not for the perform
ance of this duty, but because the
lawyer is negligent in not giving his
client advantage of every rule pre-
scribed for his protection. And this
is true Notwithstanding that now an6
then guilty men escape because of the
ability displayed by the astute advo