'The legal profession is a form of public trust\r'

'The statutory profession is a name of in the general eye(predicate) trust which is progressn only to those fitting enough to uphold the jurisprudence and assist in the administration of judge. It is a duty of public overhaul which involves sincerity, integrity and reliability, in which fiscal considerations are a mere by-product, notwithstanding establishing attorney-client relationships in the highest degree of fiduciary. The police forceyer is an oath-bound servant of society whose conduct is clearly special by inflexible norms of law and ethics to which the ends of justice are the primary considerations.\r\nIn rendering heavy services to his clients, he must observe ut well-nigh(a) fidelity to the cause of his client regardless of his undivided(prenominal) beliefs on his client’s guilt or innocence, as even the most guilty of for each one(prenominal) criminals can remedy avail of the different tributes afforded by the law. Sometimes, though, lawyers a re faced with legal complications in providing the most adequate defenses for their clients especially when the latter are engraft to have deliberately profaned the laws of the land.\r\nThese acts do no include justifying circumstances in criminal prosecutions as these are been deemed lawful when convincingly proven in court. The acts contemplated here are acts which are considered, on its face, seeming(a) violations of the law bereft of any legal justification. However, these embezzled acts do not preclude the rendering of legal services for the protection of their rights. Among the conditions and circumstances that utterly secondment the defense of illegal acts are those which are challenged ground on built-in issues involving the cod process and equate protection clauses, and constitutionally-protected freedoms such as free smell and the right to privacy.\r\nThe imputable process and the equal protection clauses have been devil of the most important protections afforded by the US Constitution to the American people to vindication them from the unwarranted intrusions of government into the free exercise of their republican rights. As a result, many previously considered violations of the law were overturned by the US compulsive approach for abridging the due process and equal protection clauses of the constitution, to the goal that entire statutes were declared unconstitutional and taken impinge on the statute books.\r\nIn the fiber of Lawrence v. Texas, two brave couples were charged and reproveed for â€Å"deviate sexual intercourse, namely anal sex, with a member of the same sex,” (539 U.S. 558) and violating the Texas Penal formula Ann. §21.06(a), which provides that a person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with anformer(a) individual of the same sex. The paederastic couple asserted that their belief was an infringement of the Equal Protection and Due fulfill Clauses of the Fourteenth amen dment, in which the majority opinion answered therefore\r\nThese matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may      make in a lifetime, choices aboriginal to personal dignity and autonomy, are central         to the acquaintance protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the liveliness of liberty is          the right to define one’s give concept of make itence, of meaning, of the universe,   and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs more or less these matters could not define the             attributes of personhood were they formed chthonian essential of the State.                                  Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)\r\n much(prenominal) homosexual acts in the privacy of a person’s home is subsumed in th e concept stated supra and their autonomy as persons to decide for themselves the concept of their own existence and meaning must be respected by the chat up and the law. While convicted in the overthrow courts for violating the law, they were vindicated by the ruling of the exacting judicature based on their constitutional challenge.\r\nA geek that was won based on procedural due process is the case of Tumey v. Ohio in which Tumey was arrested and charged with the illegal possession of intoxicating liquor at flannel Oak, another village in Hamilton county, Ohio, on a warrant issued by the mayor of North College Hill. The mayor of the town then proceeded to try and convict Tumey under the quick law. His conviction was challenged based on the pecuniary interest of the mayor in convicting Tumey as he s in any cased to gain from the amount of the costs in each case, in addition to his regular salary, as compensation for hearing such cases.\r\nThere is, therefore, no musical mode by which the mayor may be paid for his service as judge, if he does not convict those who are brought in front him. The US Supreme Court looked favorably on the assertions of Tumey, reversed his conviction, and remanded the case for gain ground trial, due to the utter lack of impartiality in the previous proceedings with the mayor sitting as a judge. This is proof once again that constitutional challenges protect the rights even of persons seen to have deliberately violated the law.\r\nIn Lanzetta v. bleak island of Jersey, the appellants were indicted and convicted under the recent Jersey Statute which moves â€Å"any person not active in any lawful occupation, known to be a member of any ring consisting of two or more persons, who has been convicted at least 3 times of existence a disorderly person, or who has been convicted of any crime, in this or any other State, is declared to be a gangster.\r\nThe US Supreme Court declared the statute unconstitutional for be ing repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment as the word â€Å"gang” and â€Å"gangster” is vague such that even those who last to a group whose objective may be legal may unnecessarily be covered. Hence, due to vagueness, there is no sufficient warning to the public as to what exactly is proscribed by the law. The persons in this case, even if tack to be true gangsters in a socio-cultural sense, had their convictions reversed simply due to the vagueness of the law.\r\nIn the case of In Re kill, John Lynch was released from prison that supposedly condemned him for life behind proscribe as the US Supreme Court constitute the penalty for this offense of indecent exposure too brute(a) for such a alight offense, sexual intercourse to more heinous crimes with the same penalty. Lynch was in spades effect guilty of his crime, yet the law still afforded him adequate protection despite his offenses when it was challenged based on the constitutional issue of disproportiona te punishments which, although not cruel or unusual in its method, it is so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity.\r\nIn New York Times v. Sullivan, the libel suit of L.B. Sullivan against the New York Times did not earn the affirmation of the US Supreme Court as it held that the interest of the public outweighs the interest of any other individual. While the New York Times might, on its face, erred in accurately reporting the facts of the civil rights demonstration involving Martin Luther King, the newspaper cannot be held for its criticisms of the semiofficial conduct of public officials.  In this case, the freedom of the tweet saved the New York Times from settling the multi-million horse libel suit filed by Sullivan even if the begin courts found them guilty of the offense.\r\nIn the famous case of Griswold v. Connecticut, Drs. Griswold and Buxton were found guilty of violati ng 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut and fined $ degree centigrade each for giving information, instruction, and medical advice to married persons as to the operator of preventing conception, notwithstanding examining a married womanhood and prescribed the vanquish contraceptive device or material for her use. The US Supreme Court reversed their convictions based on a discussion of the penumbra of rights which are formed by emanations from those constitutional guarantees that help give them life and substance. This is shown in past cases wherein, though not directly involved, the right to privacy was upheld. The court, in direct even said â€\r\nThe present case, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created            by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in    forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than ordinance their manufacture or   sale, seeks to achieve its goals by factor having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a â€Å"governmental purpose to control or prevent    activities constitutionally subject to state convention may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby intrude on the area of       protected freedoms.”\r\nYet again, the US Supreme Court intervened in expunging responsibility from individuals who were found to be in blatant violation of the actual laws of the land.\r\nIn all of these, it is patently clear that individuals found to be in deliberate violation of existing laws can still be afforded protection by our system of laws. While many other conditions and exceptions exist to warrant the defense of supposedly erring individuals and groups, the best way of going around the violations of the law is do a sound constitutional challenge before the courts of law, from the lowest courts all the way up to the US Supreme Court.\r\nIt must be remembered that these are make not only for the sheer obstinacy of fend for the cause of the client but also in pursuit of upholding the rule of law, the integrity of the courts and assist in the administration of justice. The duties of the lawyers are not only to prosecute and defend, but also to ensure that justice is done to all those who deserve it.\r\nCases Cited:\r\nLawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) Tumey v. Ohio, 373 US 510 (1927) Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 US 451 (1939) In Re Lynch, 8 Cal 3rd 410 P. 2d (1972) New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964) Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 47A (1965) \r\n'