Do lawyers even have a conscience? This question came to my mind in a telephone call of yesterday evening. This question is less weird than it may seem. A 2014 Psychology Today article – Are Lawyers All Raging Psychopaths? – states: “Based on [University of Oxford psychologist] Kevin Dutton‘s research, the second most psychopathic profession is that of a lawyer. (The first is a CEO)”.
PT: “Dutton argues that there are “functional psychopaths” who—unlike criminal psychopaths—use their unempathetic, ruthless, and charismatic personalities to succeed in mainstream society. [] Dutton argues that psychopathic traits such as arrogance, ruthlessness, deceitfulness, manipulation, and charisma can help CEOs and attorneys succeed in their professions”.
The intriguing similarities between psychopaths, CEOs and politicians have already been mentioned in my blogs of 14 April 2015 (CEOs) and 29 October 2015 (Politics). After writing the previous sentence, it just hit me that Donald Trump is a CEO, politician and someone who loves using lawyers to get what he wants. This striking observation comes on top of his Narcissistic Personality Disorder as already noticed in a 2015 Psychology Today article. Also see my 9 May 2016 blog.
Being an auditor (or Certified Public Accountant) myself, I have always wondered why the cornerstones of my profession do NOT apply to lawyers: impartiality and independence. If obtaining Justice is the goal in a legal system then the partiality and the dependence of lawyers are major obstacles in achieving that goal. Lawyers seldom strive for consensus, only when ordered explicitly by a judge. Also see my 28 December 2015 blog on Fraud – auditors vs lawyers.
The result of the current legal system is that verdicts often appear to be unfair to at least one of the parties involved. I once read about an experiment in which perpetrators were allowed to agree their own punishment with (the families of) their victims. Both parties acknowledged that the verdict was fair. The involvement of lawyers only increases the legal cost and the duration of the proceedings. Any moral objection of a client to tell lies to a judge or jury is taken away by lawyers. Essentially, lawyers will use any loophole or tactic to win a case, regardless of a client’s guilt.
Many people will now claim that it’s a lawyer’s job to win. If winning implies distorting the truth – and thus Justice – with known lies then I cannot but disagree. In auditing and banking, client due diligence has become more and more important because it involves future reputation risk. Reputation risk does not even exist in some specialised law professions. A criminal defense lawyer is perhaps the best example. How do these lawyers even sleep at night? Do they have a conscience at all?
Again, many people will now claim that even criminals should be entitled to lawyers. The underlying argument for that entitlement is most likely “the presumption of innocence” or “innocence until proven guilt”. Is that presumption even reasonable in case of repeat offenders? Shouldn’t the law be based on something like a “3 strikes out” criterion for repeat offenders? Society should be entitled that criminals are prevented from repeating their offences.
Some people will now claim that the legal system has its flaws and that it sometimes imprisons innocent people. True. I would then argue that prosecutors are hardly different in personality from defense lawyers. They also “use their unempathetic, ruthless, and charismatic personalities to succeed in mainstream society” (PT). Even in my country, prosecutors now aim for a career in politics.
Perhaps it’s time for a fundamental overhaul: let repeat offenders agree their suitable punishment with (the family of) their victims. In case they refuse this then let repeat offenders prove their innocence with the help of their lawyers.
The end of the Innocence (1989) by Don Henley
artist, lyrics, video, Wiki-1, Wiki-2
The lawyers dwell on small details
Since daddy had to fly
The lawyers clean up all details
Since daddy had to lie
Offer up your best defense
But this is the end
This is the end of the innocence
Note: all markings (bold, italic, underlining by LO unless stated otherwise.
0 Comments