Deontología del abogado y tortura: reflexión sobre el debate iusfilosófico norteamericano

• Andrea Romeo ^[1]
  1. [1] Università "Magna Graecia" de Catanzaro
• Localización: Derechos y libertades: Revista de Filosofía del Derecho y derechos humanos, ISSN 1133-0937, Nº 41, 2019, págs. 181-205
• Idioma: español
• Títulos paralelos:
  • Attorney's legal ethics and torture: a discussion within the North American jurisprudential debate
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen
  • español

    El artículo aborda las cuestiones éticas y jurídicas planteadas por los asesoramientos jurídicos ofrecidos por los abogados de OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) sobre la legalidad de la tortura. De acuerdo con la perspectiva estándard, los abogados deben seguir un modelo de profesionalidad poco ético, haciendo todo lo posible en favor de sus clientes hasta los límites de la ley, alargando la interpretación legal para encontrar la más adecuada dentro del rango de interpretaciones plausibles. Sin embargo, muchos especialistas de la deontología profesional teórica y académicos empezaron a criticar esta concepción de la deontología, señalando las interpretaciones no concluyentes, los argumentos engañosos y fracaso de la abogacía en el asesoramiento sobre la tortura desde un punto de vista iusfilosófico.

  • English

    The article addresses the ethical and jurisprudential issues raised by some legal advices on torture’s legality offered by OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) lawyers. According to the standard view perspective, lawyers are committed to hiredgun professionalism, doing everything for their clients up to the limits of the law, stretching legal interpretation to meet the most suitable one among the range of plausible interpretations. Nevertheless, many legal ethicists and legal scholars started to criticize such legal ethics account, pointing out the inconclusive interpretations, the misleading arguments and the advocacy failure in the tortures lawyers’ counseling from a jurisprudential point of view.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • A.M. DERSHOWITZ, “Tortured Reasoning,” en D. LEVINSON, Torture: A Collection, cit., p. 266,
  • A.M. DERSHOWITZ, Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge, Yale University Press, 2002
  • B. BRECHER, Torture and the Ticking Bomb, Blackwell, Oxford, 2008;
  • B. CLUCAS, G. JOHNSTONE, T. WARD (eds.), Torture: Moral Absolutes and Ambiguities, Nomos, Baden-Baden, 2009;
  • C. KUTZ, The Lawyers Know Sin: Complicity in Torture, en K. GREENBERG (ed.) The Torture Debate, cit., p. 241;
  • C.P. CURTIS, “The Ethics of Advocacy”, Stan. L. Rev., núm. 4. 1951, 3-23;
  • D. HILL, “Ticking Bombs, Torture and the Analogy with Self-defence,” American Philosophical Quarterly, núm. 44, 2007, pp. 395-404;
  • D. JOHNSTON, S. SHANE, Interrogation Memos: Inquiry Suggests No Charges, NYTIMES.COM, May 6, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/us/politics/06inquire.html...
  • D. LUBAN, “Liberalism and the Unpleasant Question of Torture”, Virginia Law Review, núm. 91, vol. 6, 2005, pp. 1425-61;
  • D. LUBAN, “The Lysistratian Prerogative: A Response to Stephen Pepper”, A. B. Found. Res. J, núm. 1, 1986, p. 637 ss., espec. p. 644;
  • D. LUBAN, “The Noblesse Oblige Tradition in the Practice of Law”, Vand. L. Rev., 41, 1988, p. 717 ss.;
  • D. LUBAN, “The torture lawyers of Washington”, en D. LUBAN, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity, Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 162-205,...
  • D. LUBAN, The adversary system excuse, en D. LUBAN, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity, cit., p. 30. 43 Ibid.
  • D. LUBAN, The Good Lawyer: Lawyer‘s Roles and Lawyers‘ Ethics, Totowa, NJ, 1984;
  • D. LUBAN, Torture, Power and Law, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2014
  • D. MORGAN, “The Evolving Concept of Professional Responsibility”, Harvard Law Review, núm. 90, 1977, pp. 702-743, p. 705.
  • D. MORGAN, R.W. TUTTLE, “Legal Representation in a Pluralistic Society”, Geo. Wash. L. Rev., núm. 63, 1995, p. 984 ss.
  • D. SUSSMAN, “What’s Wrong with Torture?”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, núm. 33, 2005, pp. 1-33;
  • D.A. ROBINSON, “Redefining The Advocate’s Role: A Contract Theory of Legal Ethics”, W. N. E. L. Rev., núm. 3, 1981, p. 409 ss.
  • D.B. Wilkins, “Legal Realism for Lawyers”, Harv. L. Rev., núm. 104, 1990, p. 468 ss., spec. 476-78.
  • F. ALLHOFF, “Terrorism and Torture”, International Journal of Applied Philosophy, núm. 17, 2003, pp.1 05-18;
  • G. TARELLO, L’interpretazione della legge, Milano 1980, p. 66.
  • H.W. JONES, “Lawyers and Justice: The Uneasy Ethics of Partisanship”, Vill. L. Rev., núm 23, 1978, pp. 957-976.
  • J. BASTEN, “Control and the Lawyer-Client Relationship”, J. Leg. Prof., núm. 6, 1981, 7-38, p. 26 y ss., espec. 35.
  • J. MAYERFIELD, “In Defence of the Absolute Prohibition on Torture,” Public Affairs Quarterly, núm. 22, 2, 2008, pp. 109–28;
  • J. MCMAHAN, “Torture in Principle and in Practice,” Public Affairs Quarterly, núm. 22, 2008, pp. 111-128;
  • J. RAZ, “Authority and Justification”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, núm. 14, 1985, p. 3
  • J. RAZ, “Authority, Law and Morality”, The Monist, núm. 68, 1985, p. 295.
  • J. RAZ, Practical Reason and Norms, II ed., Princeton, 1990, p. 183 ss.
  • J. RAZ, The Morality of Freedom, Oxford, 1984, cap. III.
  • J. WALDRON, “Torture and the Common Law: Jurisprudence for the White House”, Colum. L. Rev., núm. 105, 2006, pp. 1681 ss.
  • J. WALDRON, Torture, Terror and Trade-Offs: Philosophy for the White House, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010;
  • J.M. BERNSTEIN, Torture and Human Dignity: An Essay on Moral Injury, Chicago University Press, Chicago, 2015;
  • J.S. BYBEE, Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales Counsel to the President, Re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. 2340–2340A,...
  • J.S. PICTET, Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, 1958.
  • K. GREENBERG (ed.), The Torture Debate in America, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2006.
  • K. R. KRUSE, La svolta giusfilosofica nella deontologia dell’avvocato, cit., p. 33.
  • K. ROTH, M. WORDEN (eds.), Torture: Does it Make us Safer? Is it Ever OK? A Human Rights Perspective, The New Pres, New York, 2005;
  • K.J. GREENBERG, J.L. DRATEL, (eds.) The Torture Papers: The Road To Abu Ghraib, Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 223 ss.
  • K.R. KRUSE, “Fidelity to Law and the Moral Pluralism Premise”, Tex. L. Rev., núm. 90, 2012, p. 657
  • K.R. KRUSE, “La svolta giusfilosofica nella deontologia dell’avvocato”, trad. de A. Romeo, en K.R. KRUSE, Avvocatura e teoria del diritto....
  • K.R. KRUSE, “The Jurisprudential Turn in Legal Ethics”, Ariz. L. Rev., núm. 53, 2011, pp. 493-531,
  • M. BAGARIC, J. CLARKE, Torture: When the Unthinkable is Permissible, State University of New York Press, Albany, 2007;
  • M. HARDIMON, “Role Obligations”, Journal of Philosophy, núm. 91, 1994, pp. 333363, espec. pp. 334-335.
  • M. HATFIELD, “Professionalizing Moral Deference”, N.W. U. L. Rev. colloquy, núm. 104, 4, 2009;
  • M. KRAMER, Torture and Moral Integrity. A Philosophical Enquiry Oxford University Press, 2014;
  • M. LA TORRE, “Abogacía y retórica. Entre teoría del derecho y deontología forense”, Anuario de Filosofía del Derecho, Tomo XXV, 2008-2009,...
  • M. LA TORRE, “Juristas, malos cristianos”. Abogacía y Ética Jurídica”, Derechos y libertades, núm. 17, 2007, pp. 71-108.
  • M. LA TORRE, “Legalità”, en M. LA TORRE, G. ZANETTI (eds.), Altri seminari di filosofia del diritto, Rubbettino, Soveria Mannelli, 2010, p....
  • M. LA TORRE, M. LALATTA COSTERBOSA, Legalizzare la Tortura? Ascesa e declino dello Stato di diritto, Il Mulino, Bologna 2013;
  • M. RICHARD, The Absolute Violation: Why Torture Must be Prohibited, Montreal, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2008;
  • M.H. FREEDMAN, “Personal Responsibility in a Professional System”, Cath. U. L. Rev., núm. 27, 1978, pp. 191-205,
  • N.M. CRYSTAL, “Developing a Philosophy of Lawyering”, Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol’y, 14, 2012, pp. 75-101;
  • O.W.JR. HOLMES, “The Path of the Law”, Harvard Law Review, núm. 10, 1897, p 459.
  • P. LAURITZEN, The Ethics of Interrogation: Professional Responsibility in an Age of Terror, Washington, Georgetown University Press, D.C.,...
  • R. ATKINSON, “Beyond the New Role Morality for Lawyers”, Md. L. Rev., núm. 53, 1992, pp. 863-979;
  • R. D. MOSS, “Executive Branch Legal Interpretation: A Perspective from the Office of Legal Counsel”, Admin. L. Rev. num. 1303, 2000, p. 1305.
  • R. WASSERSTROM, “Lawyers as Professionals: Some Moral Issues”, Hum Rts, núm. 5, 1975, p. 1-24, espec. p. 6;
  • R.A. POSNER, Not a Suicide Pact. The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 85.
  • R.K. GOLDMAN, “Trivializing Torture: The Office of Legal Counsel’s 2002 Opinion Letter and International Law Against Torture”, Hum. Rts. Brief,...
  • R.K. VISCHER, “Legal Advice as Moral Perspective”, Geo. L. Legal Ethics, núm. 19, 2006, pp. 225 ss.;
  • S. KERSNHAR, “For interrogational torture”, International Journal of Applied Philosophy, núm. 19, vol. 2, 2005, pp. 223-241.
  • S. LEVINSON (ed.) Torture: A Collection, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004;
  • S.L. PEPPER, “Counseling at the Limits of the Law: An Exercise in the Jurisprudence and Ethics of Lawyering”, Yale L. J., núm. 104, 1995,...
  • S.L. PEPPER, “The Lawyer’s Amoral Ethical Role: A Defense, A Problem and Some Possibilities”, A. B. Found. Res. J., 4 1986, pp. 627–28, disponible...
  • T. DARE, The Counsel of Rogues?:A Defence of the Standard Conception of the Lawyer’s Role, Farnham, Surrey, 2009, p. 5.
  • T. SCHNEYER, “Some Sympathy for the Hired Gun”, J. Leg Edu., núm. 41, 1991, p. 11.
  • T. SCHNEYER, “The Promise and Problematics of Legal Ethics from the Lawyer’s Point of View”, Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, núm....
  • T.L. SHAFFER, R.F.JR. COCHRAN, “Technical Defenses: Ethics, Morals and the Lawyer as Friend”, Clinical Law Review, núm. 14, 2007, pp. 337-353.
  • W. LEHMAN, “The Pursuit of a Client’s Interests”, Michigan Law Review, núm. 77, 1979, pp. 1078-1097.
  • W.B. WENDEL, “Civil Obedience”, Colum. L. Rev., núm. 104, 2004;
  • W.B. WENDEL, “Deference to Clients and Obedience to Law: The Ethics of the Torture lawyers (a Response to Professor Hatfield)”, Northwestern...
  • W.B. WENDEL, “Lawyers as Quasi-Public Actors”, Alberta L. Rev., núm. 45, 2008, pp. 83-105;
  • W.B. Wendel, “Legal Ethics and the Separation of Law and Morals”, Cornell L. Rev. núm. 72, 2005-2006, p. 72.
  • W.B. Wendel, “Legal Ethics as “Political Moralism” or the Morality of Politics”, Cornell. L. Rev., núm. 93, 2008, pp. 1413-1436.
  • W.B. Wendel, “Legal Ethics is About the Law, Not Morality or Justice”, cit.,
  • W.B. WENDEL, “Razian Authority and Its Implications for Legal Ethics”, Legal Ethics, núm. 13, 2010, p. 191;
  • W.B. WENDEL, “The Lawyer’s Role in a Contemporary Democracy, Promoting the Rule of Law, Government Lawyers, Democracy, and The Rule of Law”,...
  • W.B. WENDEL, Lawyers and Fidelity to Law, Princeton, 2010;
  • W.B. WENDEL, Value Pluralism in Legal Ethics, cit., 113-213.
  • W.H. SIMON, “Ethical Discretion in Lawyering”, Harvard Law review, núm. 101, 1988, pp. 1083-1085;