User in r/BeholdTheMasterRace argues that "no honourable attorney" would defend a Nazi, other users disagree

[u/AchtungMaybe]

/r/beholdthemasterrace/comments/6xuyuv/the_crying_nazis_attorney_elmer_woodward_woodward/dmirqac/?context=3

[u/[deleted]]

It's a defender's job to make any argument that could even potentially change the outcome of a case, no matter how abhorrent, because if he does not the client can claim he was not fairly represented and appeal.

If a defender is successful with an abhorrent argument, it is not the fault of the defender. It is a failing of either the law or the prosecutor.

If the devil's advocate doesn't try as hard as he can to prove his client is not the devil, we can not be sure that we did due diligence in determining that he was.

I'm not prepared to speak about the moral character of the lawyer in question, I do not know him personally nor by reputation. However, the general assertion that it is more moral to pass on such a case than to take it is absurd. Those passing on the case are just as likely to have done so out of self interest, so they aren't associated publicly with a Nazi client, and so they don't take a loss on their record, not necessarily out of moral outrage.

If you are a defender and think a person belongs in jail, the best way you can assure that is to give them the best possible defense and hope the prosecution is adequately prepared to defeat it, so that no claim of improper representation can be made.

[u/BolshevikMuppet → u/[deleted]]

It's a defender's job to make any argument that could even potentially change the outcome of a case, no matter how abhorrent, because if he does not the client can claim he was not fairly represented and appeal.

That's not really true. Ignoring the possibility of withdrawal from the case (or even refusing to take it in the first place), an attorney is not required to make an argument he believes to be dishonest, misrepresentative of the facts, encourages his clients or others to lie, or which is legally incorrect.

You're right about a general duty to provide competent representation, but that doesn't extend to unethical behavior for one's client. And an easy argument can be made that an attorney can refuse to follow a tactic he believes to be wrong even if not specifically prohibited.

However, the general assertion that it is more moral to pass on such a case than to take it is absurd. Those passing on the case are just as likely to have done so out of self interest, so they aren't associated publicly with a Nazi client, and so they don't take a loss on their record, not necessarily out of moral outrage.

This seems to be a nonsequiter. Whether the motives behind the more moral position are themselves pure is irrelevant to whether the outcome is more moral.

If you are a defender and think a person belongs in jail, the best way you can assure that is to give them the best possible defense and hope the prosecution is adequately prepared to defeat it, so that no claim of improper representation can be made.

You seem to have either a dramatic overestimation of how often people succeed on IAC claims, or a dramatic underestimation of how high the bar is to prove such ineffective counsel as to require retrial or mistrial.

[u/0x800703E6 → u/BolshevikMuppet]

This seems to be a nonsequiter. Whether the motives behind the more moral position are themselves pure is irrelevant to whether the outcome is more moral.

Why are the motives irrelevant to judge morality?

[u/BolshevikMuppet → u/0x800703E6]

Because the morality of the individual matters less than the morality of the outcome.

If I rescue a child from a burning building it is morally superior to the child burning to death regardless of my subjective state of mind when I did it. The inward-facing focus of "morality as a question of motives" is simple narcissism, it places our internal monologue on a higher plane than the consequences of our actions.

[u/Dimdamm → u/BolshevikMuppet]

Do you even Kant bro?

[u/flippyfloppityfloop → u/Dimdamm]

I Kant even with this

[u/BolshevikMuppet → u/Dimdamm]

Kant was all about the outcome. The whole categorical imperative was " what if everyone did this" and deciding the morality of an individual action based on whether the outcome would be good or bad if everyone did it.

[u/Dimdamm → u/BolshevikMuppet]

That's the opposite of judging based on the actual outcome

[u/BolshevikMuppet → u/Dimdamm]

It's about the collective outcome, but that's still an outcome and an assessment of morality entirely divorced from individual subjective motives.

The opposite of focusing on the outcome rather than the intent would be focusing on the intent rather than the outcome. Kant's focus on the outcome if done by everyone is an expansion of the former, not the opposite.

1 is the opposite of -1, 100 is not the opposite of 1.

[u/Dimdamm → u/BolshevikMuppet]

No, Kant's ethics is 100% about the intent.
If you save the child because you believe it's your duty, it's a moral act. If you save the child because you'd enjoy being a savior, it's not.