Thank Goodness There Are Still Attorneys to Defend "Bad Guys"

The Taipei MRT random stabbing incident entered its trial phase at the end of July. In addition to the media's sensationalized and exaggerated interpretations of the defendant Cheng Chieh's (鄭捷) words and actions in court, Cheng's defense attorneys also became the focus of attention. Some condemned them, arguing that defending Cheng makes them as guilty as he is, while others were curious about what it feels like to represent a defendant of such a heinous crime.

"Why are you willing to defend a bad guy?" is a question many criminal defense attorneys are frequently asked. Geir Lippestad, the attorney for Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik, gave this answer: "Because I believe that democracy and the rule of law can make Norway a better country."

Breivik was not Lippestad's first high-profile defendant. In 2001, Lippestad had represented a neo-Nazi teenage gang defendant involved in a racially motivated murder of a second-generation immigrant. It was perhaps based on this background that Breivik actively requested to retain Lippestad.

However, Lippestad was precisely the target of Breivik's attack: a member of the Labour Party, and the person least likely to understand his right-wing totalitarian ideology. He took on Breivik's case because he believed that no matter how severe the tragedy that strikes society, the principles of democracy and the rule of law are always the best ways to solve problems—especially in such extreme moments.

Breivik admitted to his crimes from the moment of his arrest and expected severe punishment; he even hoped that Norway would reinstate the death penalty so that he could act like a sacred martyr. He looked down upon the law and did not even believe that the courts under the Labour Party administration had jurisdiction over him. For him, the trial proceedings were merely a stage to propagate his political ideology.

Nevertheless, Lippestad strictly upheld the duties of a defense counsel, safeguarding Breivik's legal rights as a defense attorney rather than adopting Breivik's perspective or acting as his client's spokesperson to voice political rhetoric externally. During the trial, Lippestad protected Breivik through judicial procedures, but in terms of values, his actions actually dealt a blow to Breivik's extremist ideology.

Breivik received a fair trial, and Norwegian society did not reinstate the death penalty as a result. Aside from innocent lives lost, the values upheld by Norway were not sacrificed. This was the greatest counterattack against Breivik, proving that his ideology was wrong. And Lippestad contributed his own efforts to this test of Norway's national values.

Situations where attorneys refuse to defend criminal defendants have indeed occurred. For example, during the 2012 New Delhi bus gang rape incident in India, a local bar association with 2,500 members "responded" to the public's outcry for swift justice by voting that its members would not provide legal aid to these defendants, declaring that "defending this case is immoral" and that they should stand by to ensure "swift trials." Ultimately, although the defendants still found counsel, the quality of their defense was alarming. For instance, one of the attorneys failed to appear in court for three consecutive days and made inappropriate remarks suggesting the victim should take responsibility for bringing the rape upon herself, which only deepened public hostility toward the defendants.

What the Indian Bar Association demonstrated was not an unflinching commitment to justice, but a fundamental misunderstanding of its own role, accompanied by a self-satisfied attitude. They ignored the true meaning of a fair trial and procedural principles, causing social justice to be harmed yet again.

If democracy and the rule of law are not unique to Norway, but are instead values shared by Taiwanese society and universally embraced, we should be thankful that there are still many attorneys in Taiwan willing to defend "bad guys."

※ This is the author's original manuscript. This article was published in the Apple Daily Forum on August 20, 2014, with minor textual adjustments by the Apple Daily Forum editors.