Do you think it's important for lawyers to have humanity?
Debate Rounds (5)
Allow me to express my disapproval towards the motion of the house (or the web).
Let me begin by referring to an instance from the Harry Potter series. The issue at hand is so complex in nature that simplifying the core aspects of the case will benefit one and all.
So in the last installation of the HP series, The Minister of Magic, Scrimgeour asks Hermione whether she intends to pursue a career in magical law ( in the scene where Dumbledore's will is being read out) and to that Hermione's response was as follows- "No I'm not. I hope to do some good in the world".
So what Miss Granger is implying Madam is that if she pursues the law, she would loose her ability to do good in the world.
Now that we have established a basic premise, let us dwell upon the merits of the same.
You see madam, I am practicing to become a lawyer and will be taking my law tests in May next year. In the brief exposure that I have had had with the law, the inherent fallacy of the motion cannot be more evident. For as men of the law, we are supposed to stick to the fundamental doctrines enshrined and codified in our expansive legal documents. Any digression, no matter how minor it might be, is seen as a failure of the legal system. Therefore, to be human whilst arguing for a client or drafting his/her appeal does not take precedence over adherence to the law. The case brought in by the client needs to be deliberated upon on its merits and the conclusions arrived at need to be strictly according to the legal doctrines. The nature of our profession Madam does not allow us to agree with the motion postulated above. Ask yourself this, would you be happy entering into a transaction with a lawyer who listens to you patiently, consoles you and dissolves you of any liability in the offense committed (despite evidence pointing to the contrary and the lawyer himself not believing the same, even for a moment), ending up loosing your case which would impose heavy fines upon you and/or would send you to prison or would you be more comfortable with a lawyer who argues your case on its merits, is focused on finding loop-holes in the defense's strategy and does not sugarcoat the gravity of the situation you have put yourself or found yourself to be in?
If arriving at conclusions based on evidence and being straightforward in our approach is inhuman madam, then we are guilty as charged.
But that doesn't mean one can't have humanity.
Humanity is understanding, it is not 'sugarcoating'.
There is many exceptions in the law. There are things that cancel each other out. But if you understand and believe your client, you can almost put yourself into their shoes.
I believe empathy and humanity are important. Because if I had a lawyer who didn't have it, I could never fully trust them. A client needs to be able to trust their lawyer completely, otherwise, they can't tell them everything. It's an instinct.
Most people do trust a understanding person.
So yes, they need to be focused, but the lawyer also needs to be understanding and relied on.
To have humanity, you can feel for your client.
And by feeling for your client, you'll know how they think, how they feel.
And then you can use those emotions. If the judge or jury has any empathy, any at all, then you can play with the feelings.
You don't need as many loopholes if the judge or jury has a feel for the client.
Like I have said, I am a child and I have no experience in court, but I've got myself out of a lot from persuasion and relying on feelings. So feeling may not be as important as law, and humanity as loopholes, but both can make a very good tool, when used right.
There *ARE* many exceptions *TO* the law.
Taking up your arguments, they only stand to validate the voice of your opposition Madam. If you put yourself in the client's shoes, where does the objectivity remain? You shall not be equipped then to objectively analyze the facts of the case and expose yourself to a conflict of interest. Every field has its prescribed code of conduct madam, and in the field of law, objectivity is one such key construct. When you perceive the situation from the client's perspective , you go against the institution of your work. And when that happens, grave consequences are bound to follow.
Madam, a client RELIES and TRUSTS his/her lawyer to get them out of a fix. That's about as far as the concept of trust stretches in an attorney-client relationship. The client never expects his lawyer to empathize with him/her or lend them a shoulder to cry upon. There are counselors to do that. You go to a lawyer when you are in a deep fix and have no way out, to ascertain the level of your difficulty and to find a way to win in a no-win situation.
Ironically madam, for a person who is so ardently campaigning for the cause of 'humanity', you seem quite experienced in, and I quote 'using emotions' and 'playing with feelings'. Humanity is indeed in safe hands with wonderful people like you around :)
Madam, as you have rightly pointed out, you have escaped from many a sticky situations by playing with emotions, by being HUMAN. But madam, did any of those situations entail working or adhering to a framework? Did any of those situations entail making objective suppositions based on established mechanisms and richly codified texts?
A simple act of buying an ice-cream free of cost can be carried out by being kind and benevolent and being human but when you put a lawyer in the same situation, he has multifarious variables to ascertain; whether he is bound by a contract by the act, if so then what kind of a contract it establishes, what is the consideration, etc. Lawyers represent an institution, they work under institutionalized mechanisms.
Therefore to be human and espouse ideals of humanity is ideal in your case madam, erroneous in ours.
But I don't think you are getting what I mean, and I guess it doesn't matter.
But keep your eyes open.
Be a decent person.
And stop being a stereotype lawyer.
On a forum beyond the existing one, I shall be willing to understand what you 'might' have meant. But as far as the arguments put forth for the motion are considered, be rest assured madam that I have unequivocally comprehended and interpreted every single argument of yours with great precision.
And I am honored Madam that you believe me to be a 'stereotype' lawyer. Because frankly speaking, becoming a lawyer takes a great amount of dedication and work and I believe there is a long way to go before I do actually end up becoming one. However, your acknowledgement of of me as a lawyer, irrespective of the stereotypical tag you choose to assign shall serve to provide me with the necessary determination required to march on ahead, undeterred by the misplaced neologisms the masses tend to formulate for men of the law .
As far as the character analysis goes, I am hardly as capable as you in that field madam, to arrive at a final result over 3 rounds of 'online' debating and hence I shall refrain from making any comments with regards to that.
As far as the motion of the house goes, my job was to convince the voting audience of the feasibility and rationality of my arguments. Whether I have been able to serve my purpose to that end shall be reflected on the ensuing results. However, I shall consider the concession received from the opposition as a positive outcome of this venture.
I apologize if my arguments were too difficult for you to comprehend. Certainly had no intentions as such :)
Snakegirl forfeited this round.
I rest my case.
Snakegirl forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.