I see the examples I gave as obvious equivalents of what the OP described. You’re not committing crimes; you’re feeding people who commit crimes.
Lawyer. As long as I’m not killing witnesses or bribing juries. If the system isn’t good enough to convict my clients within the bounds of the law, then they should go free.
I’d metagame a bit and figure out which job would be best after the 1 year is up, short term damage can’t match long term gains, this means that even if weapons designer, defense lawyer, or drugs cooker would probably be the best.
Weapons Designer gives me engineering knowledge, as well as the ability to subvert my own weapon with a new one after my time is up. All else fails, I develop something ballbreakingly powerful and hope MAD works out.
If I’m so magically good at being a Lawyer I can get anyone off, I have incredibly good argumentation skills, which allows me to make some real change by swaying legal bodies after my time is up.
Drug Cooker gives me amazing chemistry, medicinal, and possible neuroscientific knowledge which I could use to make some way to fight addiction, or any number of good drugs and medicines.
I didn’t notice in the op, but do you have a way to control those 30 million guns you’re making? What are the chances that one of those guns is going to take a life.
I’m not adding additional harm by feeding people that are already doing bad things.
Maybe my yummy food will even melt the heart of one of those evil bad guys I’m feeding and I’ll be able to get him to save just one life.
Ok, that’s the best I got and I don’t care enough to argue anymore since I usually suck at it anyway. 
I think the weapons designer or tobacco lobbyist job is the least distasteful. I’d probably go with the lobbyist job simply because I’m not interested in designing stuff. (Yes the OP said I’d be good at it, but I’m still not interested.)
Tobacco lobbyist is least unethical because smoking is a legal choice. Also I’m a former smoker, so it’d be my preferred job anyway. I could see being very good at it!
Alternatively, I’d consider the chef job if I got to poison lunch on my last day there 
Don’t confuse what’s illegal with what’s unethical. The guards at Auschwitz weren’t breaking any laws.
No, we get it perfectly. The only reason we want that is because we are innocent. If the lawyer also thinks we are innocent, then no harm, no foul. But, according to the hypothetical, you know they are guilty. You are supposed to recuse yourself from such cases.
Being a lawyer doesn’t have to be immoral. But when you find people who say they will break the intent of the law to help someone they know is guilty get off, then there is no way to defend that as ethical. You are knowingly subverting the legal process in order to get someone you know is guilty back on the street. You are ethically responsible for every other crime they commit.
There is no way around this point. Heck, if your client confesses to you, you are ethically required to stop representing them. So even your own freaking ethical code realizes that defending the guilty is wrong. The only reason you are able to defend is because you know that they might not be guilty. That’s why they need representation.
BTW, seeing as there are not, as some people think, loopholes that can get you out of anything, you have to be using some sort of magic if you aren’t breaking the law yourself. Remember, the hypothetical says you can get anyone off. Think of the worst criminal you know, (say, for example, Osama Bin Laden). If you represented him, he would now be walking around free. The hypothetical necessarily includes magic.
And someone who does not have an ethical problem with every criminal going free shouldn’t be a lawyer at all.
Oh, and I choose the chef for the reasons already offered. It’s the only scenario where they’d definitely still be doing all the evil anyways, as it’s the only one where I’m not playing a vital role. True, I’d hate myself, but it’s the least bad option.
If you know someone is guilty (and I took it from the OP that you know because of the magical hypotetical fairy, not from a confession (which could possibly be false anyway)), but the state gained evidence by illegal means, then there’s nothing wrong with trying to get the person off.
In fact, *not *trying to get them sprung is the first step toward a police state. Recognizing there are procedures the state has to follow, but ignoring them when it suits the purpose, is no better than not having the procedures at all.
Forced confession? Yeah, but it’s OK, he was guilty!
Keeping the defendant without access to a lawyer and questioning him for 36 hours straight? Yeah, but it’s OK, he was guilty!
Planting fingerprints and blood at the scene? Yeah, but it’s OK, he was guilty!
Breaking and entering and tapping phones without a warrant? Yeah, but it’s OK, he was guilty!
[QUOTE=BigT]
Heck, if your client confesses to you, you are ethically required to stop representing them. So even your own freaking ethical code realizes that defending the guilty is wrong. The only reason you are able to defend is because you know that they might not be guilty. That’s why they need representation.
[/QUOTE]
Both of these statements are incorrect. There is no such obligation. If the client confesses to the defence lawyer, it limits the defences the defence lawyer can put forward, but the defence lawyer is not required to recuse him/herself. For example, the defence lawyer can still contest the prosecution’s evidence - was it a forced confession? if so, it should be excluded? was the evidence gathered without a warrant? if so the evidence should be excluded. And the accused may be acquitted. That is perfectly consistent with the lawyer’s ethical duties to the client, the court and the public.
I chose weapons designer because I assume that will be the least actively evil choice - I can design the hell out of guns, but nobody has to buy them (and nobody gets addicted to them, either). They can sit on the shelves, and I can sleep at night. I felt that all of the rest of the options had me in a more actively evil role.
I’d be a weapons engineer, sounds interesting.
The chef and the drug maker are the only unethical positions listed IMO.
I picked chef. I would cook the most fattening, best tasting dishes from whatever ethnicity was incarcerated at the camp. The guards would every day be forced to confront (and compliment) the culture they are trying to destroy.
emphesis mine.
You know this can very easily be misinterpreted. :eek:
Maybe he’s going to serve a side of fava beans and a nice chianti…
The problem I have with the laywer is that you are serving clients that are known to have committed the crime.
You can talk about the difference between legal guilt and moral culpability all you like, but I don’t want to get that person off.
I would choose chef. For all the others you are enabling the acts, for chef, you are just making evil people happier
So you’d be in the middle of a Auschwitz, a death camp set up to eliminate Jews and anyone who might be Jewish. Set up to eliminate any traces of Judaism.
And your first day on the job you’re going to serve everyone a nice breakfast of bagels with lox, blintzes, and latkas.
Yeah, I can’t see how that plan could go wrong.
In the individual case - IF the person really did do it, I don’t give two hoots how it is proven.
What I DO care about, is if we let the abuse go unchecked when the person IS guilty, then sooner rather than later, the same techniques are going to be used to convict someone that is innocent.
For this reason it is better that we let the guilty person go, and protect the innocent that is being accused.
By feeding the guards, you are providing them with the sustenance needed to carry out the acts of torture and murder of the prisoners, which you know is why they need to be fed. That is absolutely enabling the acts.
No, it’s just enabling their continued existence. The acts are *their *choices, not the chef’s.