Loyal to the profession, the interests of the client are still loyal to the fairness and justice in the heart. Under the lawyer system, there is always an unsolvable problem.
Before watching the movie, I always insisted in my heart that lawyers should be loyal to their clients, but now I am not so firm. When I was learning, Arthur yelled out that I was relieved when I was about to kill my client.
Let me think of a case in which a well-known lawyer defended the innocence of rape of an underage girl some time ago. We said that the client's interests were indeed required, even if it was not recognized. But in the play, Arthur's partner, because of an excellent defense, caused more people to be hurt. Any person's rights within the law cannot be infringed upon. We are talking about the rights within the law but not illegal.
Arthur’s final choice can be said to violate the professional ethics of lawyers. I don’t think it is. Although there are idealistic colors, if the professional ethics of lawyers is contrary to the justice system we pursue, then we can go. Do you insist on this kind of ethics?
On the contrary, we don’t think that Arthur is always defending the interests of the client. When he shouted "Is also a people" for the transvestite man, when he looked at McClow apologetically, we would find that he always looked at the client. Be a person instead of trading things. Even if anyone commits a crime, his rights as a human being will not disappear.
There is also a point of view in the play, which is the principle of adapting crime and punishment. When Arthur went to Judge Fleming, Fleming saw that criminals commit crimes as social scum, and the current law did not punish them enough, and the crimes could not be adapted to it, allowing the prisoners to create hell by themselves and increase their punishment. . With this view, it is reasonable for him not to listen to the opinions of the plaintiff and the defendant in court.
View more about And Justice for All reviews
