Defending a Killer

I believe that everyone is entitled to a fair trial know matter where you live in the world. What I do not believe in is the way the United States Government has made a mockery out of the Judicial System. Take O. J. Simpson and Paula Jones for example, they have given Americans an up close view of how tilted the Judicial System is proving that the rich have an advantage over the poor. They bought the best team which allowed them to walk free. Bill Clinton has also come under the eyes of the people for his alleged affairs. Here again proving people of power and money will walk away, whereas average people could lose everything and can be incarcerated for their crimes. This is meant not to imply that the guilty should walk, but that money can change ones judgment.
In the video, that was shown during class one scene talked of the ethical rights that his client was entitled to. The client had confessed to his attorney how he had murdered someone in the past, and an innocent person was going to be executed in his place. The lawyer told his client how he could not reveal that information, even though someone was going to die for a crime they did not commit. Where and how could such a rule be put into place that would make it totally acceptable for an innocent person to be put to death for a crime that they did not commit? Try to vision if you can, a family member accused of murder, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for a crime they did not commit. How much faith would you now have in that family member or friend telling you that he or she is innocent. Now picture a lawyer, knowing that your spouse, son, or close friend are innocent. This lawyer knows that your family member or friend is going to be executed for a crime they did not commit. But this lawyer has a code or a set of rules that will not allow them to pass on that information. How can lawyers sleep, or for that matter live with themselves, knowing that the system that they are sworn to uphold allows those acts to go on.
It was implied to me that only a hint could be made to the prosecuting attorney that an innocent person was found guilty, however, this hint may not change that wrongfully convicted persons fate. How could a country as great as the United States, allow such a rule to exist? The very book that we are required to place our hand on, as we testify in a court of law condemns the killing of another person. Although, attorneys sworn to protect the rights of their clients, in my opinion they are committing an equally heinous crime if they chose to let an innocent person die. It seems that today with the amount of media coverage that has become available to us, the guilty have more rights than the innocent.

The second scenario that I would like write about is where a person was shot for refusal to carry out a military order. Here is an officer in the military giving an order, that will be certain death to the individual who follows it. The officer has told the person receiving the order if they do not follow that particular order then they will be shot for refusal of that order. Our humanly instincts will make us refuse the order to ensure self survival. This person knows if that order is followed they are going to die. The individual also knows if they refuse the order they will be shot anyway. If the order is refused and they attempt to flee from the situation, at the very least there is the possibility for survival providing a temporary solution to the current situation. Considering they are not shot and killed by the officer, sometime in the future they will have to answer for their actions in the field. At that time hopefully a fair trail will be available for the person who refused the order. The worst case scenario, would be the officer shoots the person for