Time once again to enlarge the number of people angry at me. I know that quite a few in this group already enjoy the pleasure of directing anger my way but it is possible that a straggler or stray remains. I operate under the assumption that, the more, the merrier.

With only a year of law school under my belt, I likely have a considerable advantage over those who failed to avoid the siren call of the ‘Dark Side of the Force.’ It quickly became clear to me that law was not a profession for anyone with a conscience. It does mean, however, that lots of otherwise unemployable undesirables are not a burden to the welfare department.

Perhaps it is sometime after the first year when they are inculcated with the notion that members of their saintly and sanctified calling are permitted to ignore the Beatitudes, the original Ten Commandments, everything they learned in kindergarten and the hallowed teachings of Perry Mason. This is something similar to the relationship too many physicians enjoy, or endure, with Hippocrates.

It appears in the movies, on the tube and in the courthouse that every good, ethical defense attorney (stop laughing) is totally committed to the exoneration of his or her client. Sometimes it is spoken. Sometimes it is left unsaid. Whatever, you are meant to get the impression that it is the ‘Prime Directive’ of the legal profession.

We mere mortals are a little disturbed when we see a defendant go free that we know, or are fairly certain, is guilty. Sometimes it is on a technicality. Sometimes it is the luck of the lawyer. They, of course, see it as a manifestation of their professional skill.

The attorneys argue that they did what they were required to do, even in a case of obvious guilt. I hold quite strongly to the tenet that it is better that a hundred guilty go free rather than a single innocent person be found guilty. That is not the point here. That applies to cases of uncertainty or anomalies in the law.

Attorneys conveniently forget that they are officers of the court before they are defenders of their clients. It sounds quaint but their primary obligation is to justice. If their primary duty is to justice, how can the acquital of a guilty person be a greater imperative? It can’t.

Attorneys like to win. Winning massages their egos and the reputation derived from winning can enhance their income. These considerations tend to color their ethics.

Well then, just how do they represent a guilty person? Their responsibility is to ensure that the accused is afforded all of his rights and is treated fairly. That is significantly different than an all out press to win, even by straining the laws and facts.

The other issue that seems to warrant attention is in the purview of prosecutors and judges. Due to advances in DNA technology, we are more frequently made aware of instances of someone apparently or provably innocent having been incarcerated. These verdicts are frequently the result of political pressures, incompetent defense, incompetence beneath the robes, prosecutorial ambitions or racism.

Whatever the reason for error in the outcome, judges and prosecutors are usually adamantly opposed to release or even retrial. Although unconscionable, if the reluctance is based on the court’s or prosecutor’s reticence to put their venality or incompetence on public display, we understand, while not applauding. I find any other reason impossible to understand how judges and lawyers can even attempt to justify. I have heard it claimed a few times that once a verdict is rendered, the result should never be overturned. I guess they don’t believe in appeals courts.

The only rational reasons for laws, courts, et alia in a good society are to provide safety, security, justice and fairness. If the system produces a mistake, it is the obligation of the officials of that system to rectify that mistake.

Any judge or prosecutor who impedes the process of determining the guilt of a convicted person deserves to be incarcerated at least as long as that person was sentenced to serve. One would think that a legal professional would look forward to being associated with justice and fairness.

Our system has some flaws that need to be addressed. So, we have no need of court officers defending and/or participating in injustice. My stance on this is not based on any personal situation. It is based on what I learned at a tender age and took to heart: No Man is an Island.

Addendum: As my fingers have not yet cramped up, let me cram in one more thought on the general subject area.

Why does everyone from the media to the man in the street insist on misstating a basic tenet of our system? One may be guilty or innocent in fact but one is not innocent in the eyes of the law until convicted. One is presumed innocent. A guilty person is not innocent from any perspective but they are entitled to the presumption.