Over at Crime and Federalism, there's a post
about an alarming ruling from the 8th Circuit. This ruling is explained a bit in that post and while I've located the case, I haven't had occasion to read it yet (getting ready for my interview tomorrow).
It does bring up an interesting dilemma though: what to do when you have an argument, etc. that you should pursue as an attorney but you find loathsome and, while legal, unconscionable. I've been thinking about this more in the context of the death penalty, considering I would like to be a prosecutor when I grow up.
These issues are also distinguishable from cases in which one may disagree with a law. I see a problem with things like three strikes laws or the current incarnation of drug laws, but I don't think I would have a problem enforcing them, while simultaneously working for modification.
So how does one reconcile an argument which one finds personally so repugnant? I know all the arguments about divorcing oneself from the role, and the justifications that if it weren't me, it would be someone else, but I want to hear something that will mean something when I see the chemicals go into my defendant's arm and I see his eyes close for the last time.
People often ask, "How could you defend someone that you know is guilty?" My answer to that is the same as my answer to the question you've posed.
Even if I don't like the particular result, I respect the law and the process behind it. My job as a lawyer is simply to ensure that the rules are followed. Not the rules of law so much as the rules of procedure. I don't decide what the laws should be or whether a man is innocent or guilty. I try to ensure that his treatment during the process of being arrested, tried, convicted, etc. is in accordance with the law. Period.
I sleep at night because even if I don't like particular laws or rules, our justice system requires that there be integrity in the application of rules. THAT is something that I will never find repugnant. But the minute we allow police, prosecutors, judges or juries to become "above the law" and make exceptions where the law does not provide for them, we undermine the integrity of our whole system.
That makes some sense, as long as I did everything ethically, disclosed any exculpatory evidence, that sort of thing, I can theoretically live with myself.
Still, it's sort of an organic thing for me, and I'll have to play it out.