0
Does the American system of law depend on the legal team to put aside its personal beliefs and work diligently on unpopular cases or issues?
Unable to answer, there is too much in the question is open to debate. AND - WHAT legal "team" is being referred to?
ANSWER:
The answer to this question is clearly, Yes. The is because the American legal system is an adversarial one. That stems mainly from the fact that this country is a country of laws and not even the government can do what it pleases if prohibited by law or the Constitution. Often, people disagree as to how far these limitations go and when these disagreements arise, the courts are needed to settle the dispute.
There are two sides to every case in court. In criminal law it is the state (prosecutor) and defendant. In civil matters it is plaintiff and defendant. Each side tries to prove its case while trying to disprove the other side's case. There is no common "search for the truth." One side puts its strongest case forward while the other side does the same and an impartial finder of fact (a jury in a jury trial or the judge in a bench trial) decides which side is correct.
The law is complicated. It is difficult if not impossible for an ordinary citizen to put a case forward in the best way possible. Therefore, the ordinary citizen is represented by a "legal team", be it one lawyer or two or an entire firm, to put that citizen's case forward in the best possible light as zealously as possible. The state's "legal team" consists of the prosecutor, the police and all the resources the government has at its command.
In a criminal case, the legal team may defend a person accused of murder even if the legal team believes that murder is a bad thing and should be discouraged. The legal team's job is to comb through the facts and the law to make certain that there is nothing that would exonerate the accused. The United States Constitution prohibits the government from punishing a person unless it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. The legal team must put aside its personal prejudices against murder and concentrate on whether the government has met its obligations before punishing someone.
When a legal team defends a murderer in such a situation, it is not defending murder; it is defending the rights of all citizens to be free from illegal punitive government action. And that is actually good for all of us.
In a civil case, the legal team may be representing a person advancing an unpopular proposition such as prohibiting prayer in a public school. The members of the legal team may all be religious people who believe in prayer, but they also recognize that the First Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion. They recognize that this means the government cannot force people to pray in a public school.
In order for that person to properly advance his/her argument, his/her legal team must put aside all personal beliefs in prayer and concentrate on whether the government may legally permit prayer. Prayer cases are almost always tremendously unpopular; but people's rights are not fixed by what is popular. We would have mob rule if that were the case. Most cases that have protected the rights of individuals are usually unpopular. Here, again, the legal team is not declaring that prayer is bad. It is upholding the Constitutional restriction against government establishing a religion.
No lawyer is required to take on a case he/she has personal problems with that would interfere with his/her professional obligation to zealously represent the client. But if no lawyers took on unpopular cases or could not see through to the real issue, we might not enjoy many of the rights that we enjoy today.
So, without a doubt, if our system of government by law and not by whim is to work, we must have legal teams that are willing and able to put aside their personal beliefs and work diligently on unpopular cases and issues.
What else can I help you with?
Why did the daimio abolished his cruel law?
that very hour the cruel law was ibolished, and custom drifted into as far a past that only the the legend remains.
Use liberty in a sentence?
The statue of liberty is found in new york
What is subjective and objective laws mean?
Subjective laws refer to rules or principles that are based on personal feelings, opinions, or beliefs. Objective laws, on the other hand, are rules or principles that are based on outside observations or facts, independent of personal viewpoints.
How does the fact that there is no punishment in Ibo law for intentionally killing a python reveal the theme of the relationship of an individual community?
The absence of punishment for killing a python in Igbo culture suggests a deeper reverence for individual beliefs and customs within the community. This reflects the theme of balancing individual freedom and community values in the social structure of the Igbo society, where personal beliefs can sometimes override communal norms without severe consequences.
Is justice subjective?
Justice can be subjective as it can be influenced by an individual's personal beliefs, values, and experiences. However, there are also objective principles of justice that are universally accepted in society. Different cultures and societies may have varying views on what constitutes justice, leading to subjectivity in its interpretation.
What colony tolerated religion and American Indians and personal beliefs was.?
The Colony was Plymouth
Why were Quakers unpopular in England?
The popular became unpopular in England due to their strict religious beliefs and their refusal to join the Army.
What is a wyakin?
A wyakin is a personal guardian spirit in Native American beliefs, taking the form of an animal or bird.
What are American beliefs?
whats is American Beliefs and Principles
How does buddist show complete commitment to his or her beliefs?
By practicing the teachings of the Buddha diligently all the time. By meditating and being mindful of our thoughts, words and deeds.
Did the Nazis adopt American progressive ideas for their master race beliefs?
yes, but because of the results and methods of the Nazi's implementation of these ideas, they became unpopular. Although it would still take many decades for America to drop many of these policies.
What beliefs did the North American Phalanx belief in?
what beliefs did the north american phalanx believe in.
Encourage an individual to communicate ther needs preferences and personal beliefs affecting their personal care?
Yes, there is need to encourage an individual to communicate their need preference and personal beliefs affecting their personal care.
The approach viewed by many American religious leaders as the best way to extend reiligious values was called?
Through the shift of religious beliefs, moral beliefs, and personal thinking (this doesnt really explain reform movement)
How you can ensure personal attitudes and beliefs do not?
· Being aware of own personal attitudes and beliefs, · being open and Understanding to others attitudes and beliefs · respecting the differences between own and others
What is david mccullough's religion?
David McCullough's religion is not widely known or publicly disclosed. As a respected historian and author, his personal beliefs are generally kept private, and he has not made any public statements about his religious affiliation. It is important to respect an individual's privacy regarding their personal beliefs and practices.
What beliefs do people have?
People have a wide range of beliefs, including religious beliefs, political beliefs, moral beliefs, and personal beliefs. Beliefs can be shaped by personal experiences, upbringing, culture, education, and other influences. It is important to respect each individual's beliefs, even if they differ from your own.
