Thin line of Ethics and professional freedom

http://mboard.rediff.com/board/board.php?boardid=news2006nov03msg&page=9

Subject: Thin line of Ethics and professional freedom There are three parties involved here, apart from the victim: Manu sharma, the media, who have been perhaps rightly sympathetic to the victim, and Ram Jethmalani. From what is projected in the media, Manu sharma deserves nothing but the gallows, but what will happen if manu sharma is denied legal help and he is hanged and it is found out later that he is actually innocent or at least his crime was not as big as it was made out to be? Hence, sarma is perfectly at liberty to hire or take help from who so ever is willing to help him, subject to his means and resources. On the other hand, Jethmalani is in public life too and hence, he has a responsibility to tell the public why he is defending Manusharma. In the process, he has a role to play beyond a famous criminal lawyer. He has to project to the public why he is convinced in the first place manusharma is innocent or does not deserve a criminal prosecution. Unless he fulfils this responsibility towards the public first, he has no right to take up this case. That is, he should be able to win the case not just legally but also morally. Thus, the court should neither be carried off by the public pressure nor the talented tongue of jethmalani. No wonder, it has a tough task ahead of it, ferreting out the Truth. Posted by kishore patnaik on 04-NOV-06
(In response to the question whether Ram Jethmalani should defend Manu Sharma?)