Chapter 24 Difficult Enlightenment - The Bridge Between the Law and the Defendant - Lawyer

A barrister who has experienced many vicissitudes of life understands both the boundless power of the law and the room for action of the defendant. No one understands the details of this lawsuit better than this wise old man.All possibilities, all answers are in his heart.Decades of rich experience in the field of life and death made him see that K's case was the most attractive case from the very beginning, and he took over immediately, intending to risk his life to be responsible to the end.Of course he was not mistaken, and it was K himself who made the mistake again and again. What is so special about K's case?What was it about the case that attracted the barrister?The barrister hadn't told K clearly what he was thinking, maybe it was impossible to say it, he could only guess, maybe he said it and K didn't understand it.But we learn from his suggestive words: K. is fighting against the entire invisible judicial system; his crime can only be capital crime, which is a hopeless lawsuit.Such a case is of course the most attractive for such an old lawyer, and it is the greatest challenge to his life-long legal work. The case itself is a miracle.The lawyer is determined to use his life-long accumulated experience to participate in this case, leading the defendant to get out of the gap in the law time and time again to enjoy the excitement of adventure.The lawyer's weapon is his personal relationship with the judge.Because judges have to keep in touch with people through lawyers, they always have to visit defense lawyers regularly, and they cannot do without lawyers. This is the defect of legal institutions-aloof and disconnected from reality.A law that is completely divorced from reality is no longer law. Therefore, in order for law to exist, it must have a relationship with reality and a relationship with the defendant.It is this dependence that makes lawyers have loopholes to exploit. What K met was a well-known barrister, and he had a deep personal friendship with the judge, so he knew every step of the case clearly. As long as K kept in touch with him, treated the appeal with a positive attitude, and ruled out whimsical ideas, it would be easy. The case can drag on for a long time, and K can live with impunity.

It's a pity that K's understanding of the future is not as clear as that of a lawyer. He is blindly obsessed and makes wrong moves.From another perspective, K's approach is also due to nature.As long as he doesn't give up life for a day, he can't follow the lawyer's teaching, because the life the lawyer pointed out to him is not the real life, but a living dead, walking dead.So his only way out was to resist, so he resisted. First of all, he offended a visiting judge at the lawyer's house. This judge can play a big role in the trial of K's case. The nurse deliberately dragged him into the water).Then he refused to listen to the lawyer's advice and doubted the lawyer's ability, until he made the bold move of dismissing the lawyer. K's every move is like a wayward child, no one's dissuasion will work, and sometimes he is complacent about his wrong judgment, and he has never realized that his death is imminent.He couldn't understand the way lawyers were full of guilt.He is not used to being in ambiguity for a long time after analyzing the contradiction. In short, he became impatient, and because of this impatience, he blamed the lawyer, misunderstood the lawyer's good intentions, and thus embarked on a single-handed and reckless path.The actions of K, who was full of vitality in his body, made his case even more hopeless from the original hopeless.The lawyer's original intention was to restrain him with the case, but he only followed his own way of thinking, and finally came to that step - using his own blood to fight the cold judicial dagger.

Did K misunderstand the barrister who took over his case, or did he deliberately not understand his activities under the premise of self-deception?What does it mean to understand what a lawyer has done for him? K noticed that lawyers rarely cross-examined him.Every time K went to him, he would either chat nonsense, or sit silently facing him, in a daze or thinking about something, or give a few useless advice; He also asked K not to disturb his work, and to have absolute trust in him instead of accusing him, because K didn't even know the reason for the accusation, almost like a blind man, but he knew all the details.From K's point of view, the lawyer was wasting his time and cheating him, and the lawyer's delay made his inner dissatisfaction and anger grow day by day; but from the lawyer's point of view, he had done everything he should do, and K blamed him because Young and impatient, he does not fully appreciate the seriousness of his case.The lawyer repeatedly described the real situation inside the judicial system to K, in order to make K understand his own situation; but K, because he followed the opposite line of thinking, regarded the lawyer's description as a cliché, which was completely inaudible, and also growing disgusted.The relationship between the two of them seems to be due to the difference in the way of thinking that can only be misunderstood to the end, and there is no possibility of communication.So is K's way of thinking really unchangeable?What is the defect of this method? When dismissing the lawyer, K told him that he followed his uncle's advice to hire a lawyer to relieve his pressure, but he did not expect to hire an attorney, and the conditions of the case were met, and everything became more distressing to him.Whereas in the past, when he didn't take the case seriously, he could almost forget it sometimes; now that he has a lawyer, the case has become an ironclad fact and is becoming more and more threatening to him. K. told the truth, and it was evident from his tone that what he was trying to avoid was exactly what he had said: the case was getting more and more pressing, and he wanted to forget more and more.Going back to the above question, everything is clear—K's self-deception, the flaws in K's way of thinking are determined by his existence, his way of life itself, and are born with it.The influence of lawyers is powerless in this regard. If K wants to understand the lawyer, he has no choice but to give up all struggles, get caught without a fight, and turn into a zombie-like court footman or guard.This is of course impossible.The lawyer didn't want him to be exactly that.The lawyer is also ambiguous. On the one hand, he may secretly appreciate K's resistance and vitality (it is because of this that he is determined to take over the case), and on the other hand, he keeps telling him that resistance is useless, and the death penalty cannot be changed.Throughout the course of the case, the lawyer's reasoning is also like a kind of quiet self-entertainment, full of the distress of a wise man.He was very sorry when K proposed to break up with him, which meant that the interesting work he had done so far would end prematurely; he tried his best to redeem it, but K couldn't listen at all.From the beginning to the end, K never understood the lawyer's efforts for him, and he still felt a little contempt in his heart. This seemed to be K's biggest mistake.But the relationship between K and the law is based on this natural misunderstanding. If he wants to live, he can only misunderstanding. The lawyer is not surprised at this point, but is very sad because of K's decision. K's instinctive misunderstanding and barrister's profound exhortation together constitute the realistic basis of the law.It was not until the end of his life that K opened his eyes to see the truth, and met the fate that had been suppressed in the depths of his subconscious for a long time.

Without exception, the lawyer's attitude towards K is also contradictory. K is always confused whether he wants to comfort him or to make him despair. It should be said that it is a combination of both.The lawyer's preaching is thoughtful and contradictory, not so much for an argument as for a discussion with K in order to find some kind of release.What path did he point K.?It is wandering in place, endless self-analysis. Since the lawyer knew the details, the difficulties he faced were unimaginable. K asked him many times about the appeal, and he always replied with a serious heart that the appeal had not yet been handed in, and that was all he could do.Such an indictment could not be written, since no one knew why K was being charged, and neither could the lawyer, who only determined K's guilt based on experience.So the lawyer thought hard, or he could only draft some official documents and perfunctory complaints, and he has not officially submitted them so far.It was no use even handing it in, he knew the judge would throw it away as waste paper.What are lawyers doing?He is waiting cautiously with K. That is what he does.

K. resolved in desperation to draw up the petition himself, but before he even started to write it he found that it was impossible, would require endless labor without any effect.Where is his sin?He had to go over his life carefully, and the smallest acts and events had to be explained in detail in every respect, and even after explaining, it was still impossible to determine guilt or innocence, and therefore no certainty of what to complain about. K experienced the limitations of his mind during this forced confession, he couldn't think of anything, he was just wasting his time.Yet this still-thinking stance is a sign of evolution.What is there beyond the reach of thought, beyond logic?This is a difficult problem faced by lawyers and K together.The lawyer who did nothing in the case voluntarily waited silently with K, isn't it a kind of comfort to K?It's a pity that K realized it too late.The law that is beyond logic remains unmoved.Whether you appeal or give up appeal, the law doesn't care, and will give the defendant full freedom.The danger is that in this posture of the law, the suspended defendant loses all principles of action and flings left and right like flies on flypaper, and he will inevitably die.Since the existence of human beings, the greatest pain is the pain of this limitation. It is an eternal disease of the spirit, inherited from generation to generation, and constantly changing into a succubi-like form, becoming more and more terrifying.

The lawyer's eyes recognized the special defendant K from the crowd, and found the possibility of communicating with eternity in this vigorous individual, so he enthusiastically intervened in his case and experienced the infinite and limited thinking together with him yes.In this death game, K can only regard the lawyer as an enemy. This is probably the rule of the game, and the lawyer will not be ignorant of this rule.Knowing this rule, still fantasizing about K getting some kind of comfort from him, this is the lawyer's inner contradiction. "The most charming of all the defendants." And K, the most charming of the most charming.The lawyer was completely fascinated by the young and energetic K. Even though the case broke his heart and even took his life, he thought his efforts were worthwhile.Lawyers have an indissoluble bond with eternity because of their profession.We can see the two-way pursuit here: what K pursues is to survive and understand the incomprehensible law in his life; what the lawyer pursues is to make the law vividly reflected in the vivid cases.The goal of the two is actually one.