• caoimhinr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Gisele Pelicot said she was reacting to remarks by Guillaume De Palma – one of the lawyers for the defence – who told the court that “there’s rape and there’s rape” in a possible attempt to back up some of the men’s claim that they assumed they were participating in a libertine couple’s sex game.

    Don’t feel too bad for them now.

    • NocturnalEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Lawyers are legally obligated to be advocates for their clients. They have to pursue arguments which may strength their cases.

      This may be their only avenue for a defence strategy.

      • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        IDK about “legally obligated”, but certainly professionally and ethically obligated.

        If someone commits a heinous crime, and you want them to rot in jail for 100 years, then you need them to have the strongest possible defence. Otherwise, they might be able to appeal their conviction, or the family of the accused may feel vindictive.

        Basically, if you want justice you need the best possible defence.

        • wewbull@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          2 months ago

          If they don’t defend their client to the best of their ability, they are guilty of perverting the course of justice. It’s a legal obligation.

          The reason… is everything else you wrote.

          • lostinfog@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            But which law says that specifically? It’s like people say companies are legally required to make profit for shareholders but can’t ever point to any actual laws

            • Notyou@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              The CEO of a company having a fiduciary obligation to the board and a lawyer to defend their client the best they can aren’t “actual laws” where a cop will arrest you. They are rules for the job and if you are not following these rules then you will be fired/lose your license to practice law.

              That’s probably why there is no law that people point out to you. It’s a job requirement.