Current location - Quotes Website - Collection of slogans - In favor: lawyers should focus on the interests of the parties, while opposing lawyers should focus on the interests of the state. My argument is yes. How can I refute it?
In favor: lawyers should focus on the interests of the parties, while opposing lawyers should focus on the interests of the state. My argument is yes. How can I refute it?
Of course, lawyers should focus on the "legitimate rights and interests" of the parties! Isn't it enough for state organs to safeguard national rights and interests, such as the public security law? Lawyers safeguard national rights and interests? What debate is this? It's like forcing a salesman to be a gangster! Lawyers become infernal affairs undercover to betray clients! It is appropriate to collect informer's fee by public security law. The parties are already in a weak position in the case, and the value and role of lawyers is to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties to the case! No matter what the client does, he has legitimate rights and interests to protect. If lawyers can't help clients safeguard their legitimate rights and interests at this time, then the national laws will be fully utilized by corrupt public security personnel and become their tools to make money, and the rights and interests of clients will be fully protected by the public security law! How's it going now? Everyone can see that the underworld is the brother of the public security law!

The law is fair competition in the sun. Whether the country wins or the parties win, everyone judges on the table. Even if someone commits a crime, they should be released without evidence. This is a public prosecution law, and they can't grasp the evidence of guilt. It's no use! In the case of distributability, we must stand on the interests of the parties, because the parties are weak and the public security law has an absolute advantage. Under the absolute advantage, we can't collect sufficient evidence of guilt, so the parties must be innocent! We are discussing this problem now, which is actually a sign of ignorance! Does anyone feel that their legitimate rights and interests have been fully protected now? Those who support the opposing argument are either incompetent public security personnel, corrupt public security personnel, or "dignitaries" whose own interests will never be infringed! Or a "visionary" with a brain problem.