My Hippocratic Oath

I have often been asked, “Would you defend a rapist if you know he committed the heinous crime?” And I have often responded by saying that I would because he is not guilty till he has been found by the Court to be. A variety of recent incidents and observations have made me relook the question, though my answer remains the same. I know that I’m going to appear in the Court about two years from now, in the capacity of an assisting counsel initially, and then I might find myself in such a situation (although the chances of it happening are very low) where I am asked to defend a horrendous criminal, perhaps a terrorist, a child molester or a serial killer.

As I look at it, for a person who respects the rule of law, the question of defending a rapist seems a silly one. For he would argue, “Well, sir, who are you to sit on judgement over him for raping a woman?” But a more practical person would retort, “The Court will take ages to convict him. And it is so obvious that he is guilty. Why should he roam around freely when he raped and killed six women?” True, our legal system is depressingly slow. But, is public ostracisation the solution? Some people might consider that to be the answer. But frankly, it is a hard choice. I think we, as subjects of a rule of law have no right to hijack the legal system. As I have earlier stated, it is the Court who is to decide, not me or you. In his latest post (which prompted me to write this), Vikram probably suggests something similar when he feels that a Public Interest Litigation should be filed against the Mysore Bar Association for issuing a fatwah of the kind it did. It is, in fact, a sad thing to happen that Bar Associations or the press prevent the smooth operation of law and fair trial.

In the Nuremberg trials too, the defendants who were charged with abetting the killing of millions of people were represented. You might argue that the reason for that was that the counsel who took up these cases felt it necessary to save the little left dignity to the Germans after the War and the Holocaust. I think there is a better reason. Everyone, never mind how degraded or horrible the criminal is, must be afforded a fair trial. No matter what. And if somebody has to do it, why not me? I know I will be sincere in doing it, and I shall do it – to the best of my ability. Without any manipulations. Without any trickery.

The job of everyone in a justice system is simple and well-defined. And if all do their job honestly and sincerely, there is no reason that justice, in its truest sense cannot be served. The job of the investigative agency is to produce all the evidence and witnesses before the Court. The job of the lawyer is to use this evidence and aid the Court to arrive at the correct conclusion as far as possible. He owes a duty to the Court and the decision-making process before his duty to the client. It is the job of the Bench, then, to judge.

So, even if I personally believe my client to be guilty, I, as a lawyer, am under the lawyers' version of a Hippocratic oath to defend him. My personal notions are entirely de-linked from my duty, which is above everything else.

At the end of it all, if I, as a lawyer, have done my job to the best of my ability and more importantly, honestly, I will walk back home as the happiest man.