*i don't know how to end my essay after the last sentence because i feel i ended it very abruptly any suggestions*
where does one draw the line between your belief and your job obligations? even if it's against one’s belief to defend a client that has come clean, saying that they are in fact ‘guilty’, but they want to plead ‘not guilty’, should one still defend their client? there are many questions that need to be asked when defending the guilty, but i certainly believe that one should defend the guilty. one can distinguish between their belief and job obligation under the following circumstance in which they would feel that they won’t be able to provide a good defense for their client because they would not want to defend a client whose admission of guilt is contrary to their clients stated position in court. i believe that one mustn’t draw the line between their belief and job obligations because then you would denying people their 8th amendment constitutional right which clearly states “ nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” i personally believe that you are violating your client's 6th amendment us constitutional right which clearly states their unalienable right of having legal representation. according to the morales law firm in san francisco, lawyers are morally bound to defend their clients regardless of their innocence or guilt vigorously. even if the client admits to the guilt, there's no knowing if that person actually committed the crime, they may be trying to protect someone or maybe guilty of a lesser crime. even if i feel that it may be wrong to defend one in the case where my client is a murderer and my client has admitted to me that he/she has committed the crime. in the american justice system, one is only accused of a crime until they are proven innocent or guilty. based on the underlying basis of the system, i would still do my best effort to try and defend this client because i don’t have to defend my client by having to insist that he/she is innocent. i can instead go the route of presenting the facts of the case through the best defense possible and leave it up to the jurors and the judge to determine the verdict (innocent or guilty). the adversarial system in the us matches my beliefs of a person being innocent until proven guilty. the adversarial system unlike its counterpart the inquisitorial system allows the guilty the chance to try to prove their innocence. the inquisitorial system does not allow for the guilty to try and defend their innocence. since the adversarial system in the us allows for the guilty the chance to prove their innocence i believe i am able to enter a plea of not guilty on their behalf.