I'm reposting the post I posted more than two years ago.

I'm reposting the post I posted more than two years ago.

Are lawyers who defend the bad guys evil?

There are evil people. The sins of the wicked are enough to make everyone angry. Lawyers for vicious villains try to reduce the sins of the wicked and sometimes claim innocence. If the wicked are not properly punished, won't it become an evil society? Aren't lawyers who help the wicked also evil?

--

First, consider the weight and risk of 'judging'.

Humans have an instinct to judge the right and wrong of everything. With this ability to judge what is good and what is bad, humans survived and raised civilization. However, this ability to judge is the beginning of pain. Judging someone as evil and harassing them, war breaks out. There is always a risk of going wrong to judge without having 'complete knowledge'. It would be a metaphor for this that humans, who ate 'good fruit' in the Garden of Eden and had the ability to judge good and evil, could no longer live in heaven.

In order for humans to live peacefully and happily, everyone has to judge others. Jesus shouted, 'If you don't want to be judged, don't judge.' Judgment can only be done by God who knows completely, and humans do not have the authority to judge other humans. The problem is that if humans live together, disputes and crimes will inevitably arise, so someone must judge, decide, and punish them. The person who finally judges everything in a country, this person is called the 'king'.

Even a king does not have the authority to judge someone because he is a human being. But someone had to judge, so for convenience, it was assumed that the king's authority came from God. It's a 'king authority theory'. Not everyone in the old days thought that God had come down from heaven and crowned the king because they were stupid. They came up with a logic to understand and understand that one judge was needed. It is the same in that the 'sovereign people' and God were believed to have power based on abstract concepts that do not exist anyway.

Nevertheless, since the king is a human being, he is bound to make a wrong judgment, and any dissatisfaction can overturn the 'new king's theory' at any time, for convenience, the king decided to make a judgment based on the 'law' assumed to have come from God. This law was either directly received by the prophet from the god, made by the king himself, or came down from the past. The key was that no one could make and change it. Humans, not God, created conditions to judge and punish someone.

--

Modernity has arrived in the West, faith in God has disappeared, and in a complicated society, it has become impossible for a king to make all judgments. Eventually, bureaucrats who were more capable than the king began to replace the king's place, and it was unclear on what basis they were judging. Originally, in Confucianism, a king could have been a king because he was 'the one who could do the king best', but should the West change in this way as well? What is clear is that if the 'king' system does not function properly as the final judge, the king cannot continue to be the king based on the groundless theory of kingship. However, it was still not human authority to judge others, so something was needed to replace God and the law. Modern philosophers thought and thought hard about it and came up with an unrealistic concept called the 'sovereign people' and attempted to replace the law with the 'constitution' they created.

Modern people take the word 'sovereign people' for granted to be true, but if you think about it a little more, you can see that it is an abstract concept. If the reason for protecting the Constitution is that the 'sovereign people' created it, are those who did not have the right to vote at the time in 1987 not sovereign people? I was born in 1982, and I don't remember voting in agreement with the current Constitution. The U.S. Constitution was created by a few white Christian men in the eastern United States, so why should all the rest of the population be subordinated to the Constitution if they are really sovereign? The 'sovereign people' are just an abstract concept like God, an ideology and a norm. People believe because they need standards and subjects of judgment anyway.

Humans love equality over freedom, so for equality, they are willing to bring their freedom to dictators (Talkville). Unlike God, a purely abstract good, it was clear that the 'people' were dangerous beings. In order to prevent democracy from committing suicide, modern political philosophers devise sharing the roles of the 'final judges'. Those who make the basis of judgment, those who judge, and those who enforce judgment. That is, they are the legislature, the court, which is the judiciary, and the executive branch including the president.

Judges are the gods of our society. This is due to the fact that only God has the 'right to judge'. However, this right of judgment is completely subordinated to the law enacted by Congress, and only has the right to judge, and based on this, one cannot directly punish or do anything. This must be strictly observed. This is because if a judge judges without a law or by interpreting the law at will, it is tantamount to returning to the monarchy. On the contrary, the same is true if the president can influence a judge. He is a king who has never been authorized by God and refers to himself as God in the human world. He is a traitor who launched a coup against the Democratic Republic.

--

In a society where the theory of royal authority was used, 'duel' was often used to determine individual wrongdoing. They believed that God would give victory to the right one. There was also a person who dueled instead of the person concerned in the duel trial, which is called a 'champion.' That's right. There was only one ethics required of champions. We will fight for our client. Even if the champion thought the client was worse, the champion should not intervene in his judgment. This is because it is an act of overpowerment that hinders God from judging justice in a duel.

Even after dueling trials were banned, this tradition remained. The parties or champions were required to fight in front of the judge so that the judge could judge according to the law. In a godless society, this process allows a godlike judge to obtain as much information as possible and determine the winner of the duel. And we call the champions of modern society 'lawyers'.

A lawyer should not judge a client because the essence of a lawyer is a champion and he is someone who has to fight to help God (judge). Humans originally do not have the authority to judge someone, and lawyers in particular do not have the authority to judge their clients. If a lawyer judges a client and intervenes in the trial, he acts as a king (judge) by exercising a power that God (the sovereign people) has never given him. He is an illegitimate king and a man who refers to God. He is a traitor who waged a coup against the Democratic Republic.

The tradition of dueling remains with lawyers even after it is banned because much of the truth can be revealed through dueling, and humans can never make perfect judgments because they cannot know everything. One of the biggest reasons that everyone can trust a country is because they have trust in this system, even though it is founded on "incomplete human judgment." But if the champions here don't fight hard for their clients, if the judges don't believe in the sincerity of the duel, then people can't trust the entire justice system and modern democratic republics will collapse.

--

In the movie 'Cape Pier', a public defender assists a vicious rapist in his punishment by not submitting evidence in favor of him to the court. The rapist appears to the lawyer with the same ability and knowledge as the devil, crying, 'Who gave you the power to judge me?' and 'Let's go to hell together, you should go to hell deeper than me.'

Evil is violence. And the state monopolizes violence. In other words, the state is an evil that monopolizes evil, and the essence of politics is to sign a contract with the devil (Bever). However, it is better for the state to monopolize evil than for it to be spread all over the world. Lawyers who defend the wicked may also seem evil. However, because of this evil, people can trust society and the state, and some order close to good can be realized. The real wicked who disturb the world are those who exercise authority over a role that is not given to them or those who do not properly play the role given to them, not lawyers who do their best in the role given to them.