one of the things that i find really hard to accept about the work of lawyers is that it has less to do with right/wrong and more to do with how to argue one's way around the legal system. an interesting example today - here is an excerpt from the telegraph regarding a man who was arrested for dangerous driving while blind:
"Pc Austin's colleague, Pc Stuart Edge, told the court that he asked Aziz whether he could see him. He said: "He removed the dark-coloured sunglasses he was wearing and I could clearly see he was blind as he had no eyes."
Timothy Gascoyne, defending, said Aziz, who did not give evidence, should be cleared because "the question is not whether his driving was dangerous, but whether being blind makes it dangerous".
He said: "If my client hadn't been blind he wouldn't have been arrested for dangerous driving, so it doesn't fall far below what is expected from a careful and competent driver.""
mr. gascoyne, i salute your chutzpah. meanwhile, mr. aziz was convicted.