A loophole enables several victims to avoid the law. Therefore, a loophole is a form of refuge in audacity, which allows the victims to claim that they were following the rules and the truth is that they are guilty (Marshall 2005). However, in this case, the loophole is not really a loophole because there is a possibility that the victim was wrongly convicted. It is the responsibility of the judge to defend his client against any injustice. Since the DNA contamination that was supposed to clear the victim guilty or innocent was unlikely, therefore the society should not condemn the victim without clear evidence. Although the crime is a heinous act against the child, trying to defend the ground, on the ground of lack of evidence should not be considered a loophole.
The attorneys defend the constitutional rights of defendants so vigorously because he or she has legal responsibilities. The founders of the constitutional believed that citizens in the fair and just society should not be convicted just because the government or society believes they are guilty, but should be given the chance to defend themselves. Therefore, it is the attorneys’ legal responsibility to achieve the ideal means of maintaining the government honest of no imprisonment based on false or vague evidence, unreliable witnesses or other forms of duress even if the accused is indeed guilty. Therefore, attorneys defend the constitutional rights of defendants so vigorously because it is their legal right to protect the interest of their client. In cases where the accused escape justice based on loopholes, the victims of crimes end up being denied justice (Keith, 2007).
I would go public and explain to the people that it was my responsibility to defend the accused because he could be guilty of the heinous crime. Since the DNA contamination was unlikely, there is no evidence to prove my client is guilty despite the magnitude of the crime. Therefore, regardless of whether the accused is guilty of the heinous crime the ethical responsibility of an attorney does not change. In this case, there is real evidence that the DNA contamination was not likely, therefore accused was innocent due to lack of evidence.
References
Keith, K. (2007). Ethical Dilemmas in Defending the Factually Guilty Client | Kresenda Keith - Academia.edu. Retrieved March 7, 2014, from http://www.academia.edu/2899889/Ethical_Dilemmas_in_Defending_the_Factually_Guil ty_Client
Marshall , J. (2005). The Ethics of Justice: Why Criminal Defense Lawyers Defend the Guilty. Retrieved from http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/defense.html
