Can a bishop as a lawyer represent a sexual harassment offender?

[Palerider]

I am always curious why some of these type questions come up. I sold cars for 3yrs while serving as a Branch President. I would often get asked how I could do that and serve as a Branch President.

I never got questions like that when I served as a Bishop, I had a different job then. I guess that job was accepted and perhaps the reason I was never asked.

[pam]

I am always curious why some of these type questions come up. I sold cars for 3yrs while serving as a Branch President. I would often get asked how I could do that and serve as a Branch President.

I never got questions like that when I served as a Bishop, I had a different job then. I guess that job was accepted and perhaps the reason I was never asked.

Probably the same reason I always got asked how I could be LDS and work in a convenience store (past job) and sell tobacco and beer.

[Backroads]

I am always curious why some of these type questions come up. I sold cars for 3yrs while serving as a Branch President. I would often get asked how I could do that and serve as a Branch President.

I never got questions like that when I served as a Bishop, I had a different job then. I guess that job was accepted and perhaps the reason I was never asked.

I'm trying to wrap my head around what is so sinful about being a car-selling branch president.

On that note, are we really supposed to change our profession to suit our church calling?

[blackknight5k]

Probably the same reason I always got asked how I could be LDS and work in a convenience store (past job) and sell tobacco and beer.

My Grandfather was a Bishop while working as a buyer/seller at a large grocery chain - he probably bought more alcohol or tobacco than most people will need in their lives. When asked about it, he would simply say "I'm just doing my job" and that was that.

The bishop in the OP's question is doing that - he's just doing his job. What do you expect him to do? turn down every case where the person is guilty but pleads innocent?

[Dravin]

I'm trying to wrap my head around what is so sinful about being a car-selling branch president.

On that note, are we really supposed to change our profession to suit our church calling?

It's probably result of the stereotype of the cheating dishonest used car salesman.

[pam]

My Grandfather was a Bishop while working as a buyer/seller at a large grocery chain - he probably bought more alcohol or tobacco than most people will need in their lives. When asked about it, he would simply say "I'm just doing my job" and that was that.

The bishop in the OP's question is doing that - he's just doing his job. What do you expect him to do? turn down every case where the person is guilty but pleads innocent?

Totally in agreement. It's just the mentality that some members have. That your job should reflect your beliefs. I suppose it could in many ways..you wouldn't be working the local street corner comes to mind.

[blackknight5k]

More specific to the OP - I went through a somewhat nasty divorce. The divorce part wasn't the problem, it was the custody. I had to do some internet sleuthing to get evidence that my ex-wife was unfit to be a mother (which she is, sad to say). Anyway, my lawyer was a member of the church and in the course of that investigation I stumble upon numerous pictures my ex-wife had posted online of herself in the nude...they were very pornographic, however my lawyer had to look at them with me...I don't think he had an issue going to the temple any time after that or felt the need to repent, it was part of his job and it had to be done to determine if they would help us prove that she was unfit. Would you feel like you were barred from the temple if your job including you having to look at porn in your work? There are more jobs out there than you think that involve that - certain subsets of my job require me to test proxy servers and sometimes if the proxy fails you get a glimpse of something that you didn't really want to see...

Though there are jobs out there that are clearly wrong (prostitute, bartender, tobacco co CEO, etc..) we all have to do things that we may not agree with.

[pam]

There are many vice police officers that deal with porn and the likes all the time. It's their job. Imagine the police officers that have to investigate child porn. There are just some jobs that require things that would be questionable..but it is their job. Thank goodness.

[blackknight5k]

I had that fact worked into my response, but I pulled it out since I didn't know how touchy that subject was. In general, I'm not a fan of police officers. Pile on me if you will, but the whole "thin blue line" crap and the ever increasing militarization of the police forces angers me. It seems all the police officers I know got significantly...err...harsher? meaner? I'm trying to keep it as clean as possible.

That being said, I highly respect those officers who deal with child pornography even just once, let alone those poor souls who have to see it every day. They have to analyze every picture for every detail trying to get as much information from it as possible. I would probably be the most depressed person in the world if that was my job.

May God bless them and bless all those children who are in those situations across this earth.

[Backroads]

It's probably result of the stereotype of the cheating dishonest used car salesman.

If only it weren't ethically questionable to use the branch president thing to boost his sales...

[Palerider]

If only it weren't ethically questionable to use the branch president thing to boost his sales...

needed the laugh button for that.....on a side note....whole time I sold cars only 2 members purchased from me.....whats that tell ya....:eek:

[pam]

That you are a lousy used car salesman? :)

[Guest]

I think the main point here is this:

The OP believes that the defense lawyer of a guilty criminal is BAD.

This needs to change. The defense lawyer of a guilty criminal is a necessary part of justice just like it says in 2nd Nephi - for anything good to come out, there has to be an opposition to all things.

A defense lawyer of a guilty criminal guarantees that justice is served. Because, unless the prosecutor can prove the crime, you can't really serve justice fit for the crime... unless you're okay with innocent people rotting in jail just so you won't have guilty people running free.

[Blackmarch]

My question is: Can a LDS Bishop, whom is a lawyer, represent a multiple time sexual harassment offender? I guess it may be just for the money.

i don't see why not, altho things that might differe if the defendant was a member or was previously a member of a congregation that the bishop presided over.

Another potential complication would be if the bishop at some point before the close of the proceedings felt or came to know the individual was guilty, and would still have to defend him.

[Backroads]

I think the main point here is this:

The OP believes that the defense lawyer of a guilty criminal is BAD.

This needs to change. The defense lawyer of a guilty criminal is a necessary part of justice just like it says in 2nd Nephi - for anything good to come out, there has to be an opposition to all things.

A defense lawyer of a guilty criminal guarantees that justice is served. Because, unless the prosecutor can prove the crime, you can't really serve justice fit for the crime... unless you're okay with innocent people rotting in jail just so you won't have guilty people running free.

Well-said. I don't care if Bishop Lawyer thinks the guy is guilty or innocent. It's his job to make sure he gets a fair and just trial.

[Vonwasden1]

An attorney's job is to ensure that his client gets a fair trial and to advise his client on court procedures, and possible punishments. It isn't his job to lie to the court or do anything unethical or illegal. As long as this Bishop is not breaking the law, then yes he is doing his job. Being a defense attorney means you deal with some of the lowest of the low in society, but they have made the choice to ensure that the legal system works properly and at it's best. They are not supposed to make moral judgements about their clients, but to ensure their clients rights.

[ztodd]

They are not supposed to make moral judgements about their clients

Is it even possible to not make moral judgments about a case you're working on in such detail as a lawyer?

[Guest]

Is it even possible to not make moral judgments about a case you're working on in such detail as a lawyer?

Yes, it is possible. Just like it is possible for a doctor to save the life of a gangster who got shot while murdering his girlfriend.

Whatever moral judgement you make should not hold any bearing to your defense. You can ask to be excused if you are finding it difficult to proceed.

[ztodd]

Totally in agreement. It's just the mentality that some members have. That your job should reflect your beliefs. I suppose it could in many ways..you wouldn't be working the local street corner comes to mind.

It's the mentality I have. I think lawyers are necessary, but it'd be a real tough job for me to do. I think lawyers should not be obligated to defend people who they feel are guilty. It seems to me to be disingenuous to do such a thing.

That just my own feeling, and why I couldn't be a lawyer. I don't mean to pass judgment on anyone else.

I'd also have a tough time selling liquor and stuff like that. I feel like participating only in activities that I believe are good and moral should be a high priority for me. So as long as there are jobs out there I can do that fit that criteria, I wouldn't feel good about going against it.

But I recognize that there is evil to be found in any medium to large sized business- so you might need to make a trade-off in some degree to be able to support your family.

If you say "well someone's gotta do it", I believe that's only true to a certain extent. In the case of defense lawyers, yes, we do need to provide a defense for everyone who wants one, but we don't have to make people go against their principles to do it. There will pretty much always be someone else willing to take the case.

[ztodd]

Yes, it is possible. Just like it is possible for a doctor to save the life of a gangster who got shot while murdering his girlfriend.

Whatever moral judgement you make should not hold any bearing to your defense. You can ask to be excused if you are finding it difficult to proceed.

Sounds like you're saying that it is still possible for a lawyer to defend someone even though it's against his or her moral principles. That's not exactly what I was asking, but I understand your point.

The case of a doctor saving someone who got shot while in the act of murder is a little bit different- I woud have no qualms about doing that. The doctor would not be defending or justifying the actions of the gangster in that scenario.

[Guest]

Sounds like you're saying that it is still possible for a lawyer to defend someone even though it's against his or her moral principles. That's not exactly what I was asking, but I understand your point.

The case of a doctor saving someone who got shot while in the act of murder is a little bit different- I woud have no qualms about doing that. The doctor would not be defending or justifying the actions of the gangster in that scenario.

And neither would the lawyer.

That's really the very big misconception here that I have stated in a previous post and probably just went whoosh over people's heads.

A lawyer defending a guilty person is not defending/justifying a wrong-doing. He is defending the JUSTICE SYSTEM.

Now, let me ask you. How would your Justice System work (your rules, you get to form whatever kind of justice system you want)? Let's say... the case is - the gangster murdered his girlfriend in broad daylight with 50,000 witnesses and a youtube video to boot, smoking gun in hand complete with fingerprints and submitted into evidence. How do you want to carry out that justice system?

(Just so you know I'm not just pulling ideas off my behind... I worked for my uncle who is a big shot lawyer-turned Congressman. He is one of the most upstanding person I know, second only to my dad. I've had very intense conversations with him about how he can prosecute a rapist in the morning and then defend another rapist in the afternoon - yeah, he actually did that! - and no, he worked as a private lawyer, not a public defender or whatever. And in the Philippines, the lawyer is of much bigger import than American lawyers - there's no jury. Just the 2 lawyers and a judge).

Edited May 25, 2011 by anatess

[Backroads]

If you say "well someone's gotta do it", I believe that's only true to a certain extent. In the case of defense lawyers, yes, we do need to provide a defense for everyone who wants one, but we don't have to make people go against their principles to do it. There will pretty much always be someone else willing to take the case.

What lowlife has personal principles against fairness and justice?

[FunkyTown]

What lowlife has personal principles against fairness and justice?

They may not be a lowlife. They may simply disagree with the 'Everyone is innocent until proven guilty' principle.

In practice, I have seen that most people disagree with this stance: The OJ Simpson Trial, for a specific instance, or most people accused of rape to name a more generalized view.

Thankfully, people like the OPs lawyer exist - People who will struggle to follow that fundamentally important belief. It's not easy. It's not popular, but if I'm ever accused of doing something I didn't do, I desperately want someone like this Bishop around.

[Backroads]

They may not be a lowlife. They may simply disagree with the 'Everyone is innocent until proven guilty' principle.

In practice, I have seen that most people disagree with this stance: The OJ Simpson Trial, for a specific instance, or most people accused of rape to name a more generalized view.

Thankfully, people like the OPs lawyer exist - People who will struggle to follow that fundamentally important belief. It's not easy. It's not popular, but if I'm ever accused of doing something I didn't do, I desperately want someone like this Bishop around.

It is a good thing. But if anything but the innocent until proven guilty principle becomes mainstream, things will get ugly.

[Seminarysnoozer]

An attorney's job is to ensure that his client gets a fair trial and to advise his client on court procedures, and possible punishments. It isn't his job to lie to the court or do anything unethical or illegal. As long as this Bishop is not breaking the law, then yes he is doing his job. Being a defense attorney means you deal with some of the lowest of the low in society, but they have made the choice to ensure that the legal system works properly and at it's best. They are not supposed to make moral judgements about their clients, but to ensure their clients rights.

I agree that their job is to not make moral judgments but there may be a problem with that and maintaining the spiritual connection a Bishop needs to see everything in a moral light. How does one turn that off?

I think the problem with this situation is not the 'moral judgement' part, its the 'client gets a fair trial' part that comes in conflict, I think, with gospel teachings. In making sure the 'client gets a fair trial' lawyers often times tell their clients to not say certain things or to present certain facts in a certain light. They protect the information given to them under confidentiality, i.e. - in secret, to 'protect' their client from unfair judgment. To do that correctly requires Jesus-like insight as to the thoughts of the accusers. How does a man know how others will judge his client? Does he really have that amount of insight to say, we will say this but we won't say that unless he knows what the accusers are saying and is willing to testify to that in the next life.

If the lawyer withholds any bit of information or conversation he has with his client than he runs the risk of being accused of being in cohorts with the client in the next life, in my opinion. Why put yourself in that position as a man of God?