Hired Guns In A Criminal Case

The label of “ hired guns,” for lawyers means they are hired and paid to litigate a case in the benefit of their client. The term gun is utilized to symbolize the damage they can inflict through restitutions, fines, probation or jail time. However, the term “ hired guns,” carries a negative connotation since it compares lawyers to weapons, which furthers the idea that lawyers are immoral and awful individuals. It is not to say that a portion of lawyers does not operate as “ hired guns,” but categorize lawyers as “ hired guns,” taints the actions and reputations of lawyers who seek to help charities, non-profits, engage in pro bono and essentially seek law for justice over profits. The term“ hired guns,” is true to a certain extent because

some lawyers seek fame, recognition, and money for picking up cases their convictions might contradict, while other lawyers deny cases because they feel it goes against their ideals.

The label of “ hired guns,” has constructed the idea that lawyers take cases for money and recognition, while simultaneously ignoring ethics. These generalizations create the idea that lawyers completely adapt to their client’s belief because they undermine the intelligence and ideals of a lawyer. Individuals who study law become familiarized with the world and their country since they learn how their country functions legally. Those years of studies, on top of their life experiences outside the classroom, mold an individual’s convictions. Therefore to assume a lawyer will immediately drop these convictions solely based on one case sabotages the knowledge and the year's lawyers work to attain. However, what lawyers do is that they analyze the law and argue it benefit their clients. One of the most fundamental parts of becoming a successful attorney is being able to objectify the cases by distancing oneself from politics in order to focus on the facts. This process is what some individuals refer to as “ thinking like a lawyer.” Nevertheless, lawyers depending on their workplace can deny cases because these go against their ethics and feel they could not argue these to the best of their abilities. Other reasons lawyers deny cases is if these cases create a conflict of interest for the lawyers or his firm. To ability decline because of conflict of interest is important because it can hamper the reputation of some firms; therefore, lawyers must be critical of the cases they accept. Another reason to deny a case is if the client asks the lawyer to work in a field of law that lawyers are not so familiar with, thus the lawyer will deny the case because he feels another lawyer could possibly build a better case. The law allows lawyers legitimate reasons to deny cases because it is in the best interest of both the law and the attorney to practice the law to the best of their abilities. However, lawyers cannot deny a case if their reason is implicitly based on race or any other type of discrimination. The justice system prevents this discrimination in order to prevent races from losing accessibility to law.
Evidently, to state that lawyers adapt to their client’s ideal are misconstrued generalizations because they undermine the overall preparation and intelligence of lawyer.

2. ANSWER THE LAST PART OF QUESTION 5 ON PAGE 38 OF THE TEXTBOOK – PREPARE AN OPINION (WRITTEN DECISION) OF ACQUITTAL ON THE GROUND OF NECESSITY, USING ONLY THE MATERIAL TO WHICH LORD COLERIDGE REFERS IN HIS OPINION.

I must disagree with Lord Hale’s analysis regarding the case The Queen v Dudley and Shepard (1884) because it fails to understand the severity and complexity of the situation.

The idea of homicide by necessity must be furthered examined to properly understand the intent of their “ crime.” The murder of the young boy exemplifies the idea of “ necessity by murder,” considering the act was done out of desperation and total fright of life. The event occurred because the continual doubt facing the sailors prompted them to come to a consensus where the youngest would be sacrificed in an attempt to supply the already resourceless crew with food in hopes they soon reached land or were rescued.The murder of the child was not done to suffice personal malice or as a method of revenge, but rather an act of desperation by individuals who aspire to live past their present misfortunes. This idea supports Lord Bacon’s claim regarding the necessity to conserve life. He provides a written example that exemplifies whether homicide by necessity is justifiable. He states “ so if the divers be in dangers of drowning by the carting away of some boat or barge ,and one of them get to some plank, or on the boat’s side to keep himself above water, and another to save his life thrust from it, whereby he is drowned, this is neither se defendendo nor by misadventure, but justifiable,” (37). His claim follows the idea of homicide by necessity similarly found in The Queen v Dudley and Stephens considering in this instance the thrust was executed with the purpose of saving one’s life. It is, therefore, unfair to classify their actions as a homicide since such word carries a negative connotation and taints their ideas as cruel and malice. It is quintessential for the legal system to understand the motives and intent behind the actions occurred at sea by these men to properly determine their act was done to survive. Evidently, it is clear through their desperations that the crime executed in case

The Queen and Stephens carries no malicious intent.

Lord Hale seeks to analyze the term necessity to characterize the actions he believes are acceptable if utilized and executed in terms of self-defense. Lord Hale characterizes homicide by necessity as “ in pursuit of a felon, in killing him that assaults to rob, or comes to burn or break a house, or the like, which are themselves no felony,” ( 35). Yet, in principle, the idea of justifying actions as necessary due to the dangerous scenarios placed upon individuals follows the same logic in the questioned case.There is a similarly between discovering an individual entering one’s home and being part of a ship depleted of resources endangers the life of everybody on board. Thus, the assailant may be murdered because he poses an imminent threat to one’s life, yet how is this much different to a ship that is resourceless without any assurance of when a rescue or a proper meal may arrive. Lord Hale advocates for self-defense as a justification for homicide, but if self-defense is done at last resort, then it should be clarified that the young boy was murdered as last resort for survival. Moreover, what are the differences between these scenarios? If the idea behind homicide by necessity is that the murder of one individual is done to save more individuals,then do these actions not achieve the same purpose ? Lord Coleridge argues the case sets up standards for humans which they cannot achieve. It is evident that human survival instincts distort rationale and cooperation as men seek self-interest. Lord Coleridge expresses his feelings about the case as he states “ we are often compelled to set up standards we cannot reach ourselves, and to lay down rules which we could not ourselves satisfy,” ( 38). If Coleridge argues that humans cannot lead up to these standards then perhaps this signals the misunderstanding of the circumstances presented to the judges. This law illustrates a particular flaw in the justice system because it relies on interpretation and how well the judges present in the courts can identify with the circumstances of the accused. Therefore, the ruling is not only inefficient because it fails in understanding the particular circumstance of the men brought forth, but also a law created on arbitrariness rather than on reason. A system built on reason would ( understand and evaluate the circumstance)

Furthermore, I must ask what is the alternative? Is the alternative to having all men perish for trying to follow the standards of a country they might never again reach? Would this law accomplish the ultimate purpose of laws, that is to control behavior and deter crime if these men face uncertainty about returning to their respective country. After weeks at sea, these men's focus has shifted from obeying the law to solely surviving day by day; therefore, it is illogical to expect such these men to not seek and explore new methods of survival. Consequently, the law should not punish them for trying to save their life in the most extreme of circumstances. That being said, the doctrine of homicide by necessity should protect these individuals’ actions since their deeds were executed in a manner to prolong a survival that was unclear. Coleridge’s statement about the law setting unreasonable standards should highlight this discussion as it central to understanding why these individuals should not be charged with homicide. If the legal system cannot set up reasonable laws, then by very same token it should seek to change these. This case ,in particular, should inspire a change in the law to provide these men with liberty for actions they did to survive.