Abstract
This article responds to Professor Edmundson's epistemological reformulation of the criminal defense paradigm, which holds that criminal defense lawyers are justified in assisting the known guilty avoid punishment. After showing that criminal defense lawyers can often be said to whether their clients are guilty, in the ordinary sense of the word know, the article challenges Professor Edmundson's suggestion that a special, more restrictive sense of know should be applied in the context of criminal defense. It concludes that we are still in the very real dilemma Professor Edmundson identifies: Our criminal justice system requires lawyers to represent the known guilty as if they were innocent, but it does not provide a convincing moral justification for that requirement.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
