"Without the solicitors, the criminals are fúcked"- *alleged* Dublin criminal

LighterGuy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Praying that this post is a wind-up!

I hate solicitors. that it as you need to know baby.

Spunge

LighterGuy wrote: »

I hate all that "ah people are innocent until proven guilty" bollocks

:pac:

Snowie

Dionysus wrote: »

So there we have it. I had tears in my eyes after that, and you could hear the glee in Mary Wilson's voice.

On Drivetime, at 17.20 today Fergal Keane was outside the Criminal Courts of Justice interviewing *alleged* criminals about how they felt when criminal (ahem) solicitors and barristers staged a walk-out on them. Starts at 52.25. Fast forward past your man who "feels very bad and very sad" (hehe - what a rogue!) to 53.42:

"*Alleged* Dublin criminal: The solicitors should be getting more money.
Keane: And who should pay them?
*Alleged* Dublin criminal: Who's going to pay them? The government should pay; the government should pay the solicitors because the reason why they should pay the solicitors is they're doing a good job, they're keeping criminals out of trouble, without the solicitors the criminals are fúcked."

---

If ever there were an advertisement for the truly heroic service which solicitors and barristers give Irish society as they nobly defend their ridiculous fees from the Irish taxpayer justice this is it. It's a shocking state of affairs that the government would think of reducing the income of a legal profession which works so hard for the marginalised in Irish society.

lets start a lynch string em up leave them hanging :cool:

Hank_Jones

starbelgrade wrote: »

Everyone deserves legal representation.

Just because they are guilty of 50 crimes doesn't automatically make them guilty of 51.

True, the legal system costs us money, but it's an important thing to spend money on. Not everything can be judged by how much it costs financially.

Still makes them a danger to society after they are cleared of crime 51.

Taken from Guardian article, but still..

Repeat criminals responsible for half a million crimes

One in four criminals went straight back to crime and were responsible for more than half a million new offences last year.

Half of the crimes were committed by career criminals who had at least 25 previous offences to their name.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8853042/Repeat-criminals-responsible-for-half-a-million-crimes.html

All of this stuff relating to rights, I would think people would have a different view if a career criminal hurt someone close to them.

Brain Stroking

LighterGuy wrote: »

I was talking about from a solicitors point of view. Them agreeing to repersent a clearly guilty man. Take johnny cochran. Great example. Took on the Oj Simpson case. Cochran knew he was guilty. The world knew he was guilty. But he got him off.
I'm talking about ethics and morals here. Can a person repersent a clearly guilty man (talking oj case level of clearly guilty here) and look in the mirror and say "i am a good person" .. or is it all about the money. Not caring if they did it or not. As long as you get them off any get the paycheck.

You do realise Johnnie Cochrane was an attorney? Do you know anything about how the irish legal system works? Do you know that a very small percentage of solicitors work in criminal law? Do you realise that the bit in bold is essentially describing a perfect day for a barrister not a solicitor?
Do you understand the legal aid system and how cases are allocated to criminal solicitors' offices?

Aurum

LighterGuy wrote: »

I hate solicitors. that it as you need to know baby.

And who exactly is someone going to go to if they want to draw up a complicated will, sell their home, get a divorce/separation, are wrongly convicted of a crime, want to draw up a contract, injure themselves due to the negligence of another…the list goes on. If it wasn't for Irish lawyers with a social conscience, so many awful laws would still be in force (like bans on contraception, divorce, homosexuality, women serving on juries; again, the list goes on.) There are some lawyers who are lying, self-serving and arrogant, but I'm sure the percentage would be about the same as the number of people generally who fall into that category.

Hank_Jones

El Weirdo wrote: »

But in our system everybody is entitled to a fair trial. It doesn't matter how many convictions they have.

It is not entirely impossible that someone could have loads of minor convictions from when they are young, reform and go straight, become an upstanding member of the community and then be arrested for a crime that they are innocent of when they are older.

Do you deny that person legal aid because of their past?

It would have to be means tested in terms of convictions.

If someone is a repeat rapist who considered a danger to society, I don't think that person deserves free legal aid.

If repeatedly shoplifted bread from the supermarket, that's a different story.

There should be a harder line taken though.

Brain Stroking

Hank_Jones wrote: »

It would have to be means tested in terms of convictions.

If someone is a repeat rapist who considered a danger to society, I don't think that person deserves free legal aid.

If repeatedly shoplifted bread from the supermarket, that's a different story.

There should be a harder line taken though.

See you in Strasbourg

FTGFOP

Dionysus wrote: »

FE-1 (8 of them) and FE2 exams.

*casts aside sack of doorknobs*

El Weirdo

Hank_Jones wrote: »

It would have to be means tested in terms of convictions.

If someone is a repeat rapist who considered a danger to society, I don't think that person deserves free legal aid.

If repeatedly shoplifted bread from the supermarket, that's a different story.

There should be a harder line taken though.

No.

Who gets to decide who is a danger to society? Is that not what the courts are there to decide? Or do we leave it to the Daily Mail/Joe Duffy types?

mackg

Hank_Jones wrote: »

It would have to be means tested in terms of convictions.

If someone is a repeat rapist who considered a danger to society, I don't think that person deserves free legal aid.

If repeatedly shoplifted bread from the supermarket, that's a different story.

There should be a harder line taken though.

The problem here is that a convicted repeat rapist shouldn't even be on the streets in the first place.

LighterGuy

Brain Stroking wrote: »

You do realise Johnnie Cochrane was an attorney? Do you know anything about how the irish legal system works? Do you know that a very small percentage of solicitors work in criminal law? Do you realise that the bit in bold is essentially describing a perfect day for a barrister not a solicitor?
Do you understand the legal aid system and how cases are allocated to criminal solicitors' offices?

K-9

mackg wrote: »

The problem here is that a convicted repeat rapist shouldn't even be on the streets in the first place.

Exactly, tighten up bail laws, we'd a referendum about it years ago, fat lot of good it did.

Hank_Jones

mackg wrote: »

The problem here is that a convicted repeat rapist shouldn't even be on the streets in the first place.

Indeed and of course the system works....

I'm sure Larry Murphy thinks so anyway.

Hijpo

Dont intentionaly break the law and you wont have to worry about your free legal aid. Simples

K-9

Hijpo wrote: »

Dont intentionaly break the law and you wont have to worry about your free legal aid. Simples

Yeah, it really is that simple as the Birmingham 6 or the McBrearty's will tell you.

Bloody pc liberals they were.

Hijpo

K-9 wrote: »

Hijpo wrote: »

Dont intentionaly break the law and you wont have to worry about your free legal aid. Simples

Yeah, it really is that simple as the Birmingham 6 or the McBrearty's will tell you.

Bloody pc liberals they were.

Wernt the birmingham 6 sentanced in the uk? Thats a bit diffrent than some low life who repeatedly.offends because anytime hes caught he can get free legal representation. If it was costing him he might have a diffrent take on it.

AgileMyth

starbelgrade wrote: »

What about the upwards only rent policy on underground lairs?

Surely that's unsustainable in today's economy - especially for the small to medium sized criminal.

Add the fact that lairs are notoriously difficult to heat and you're running into big bucks already. And we haven't even started on the bitchin' selection of gadgets and cars and other cool shit

Guy:Incognito

Once you hit 30 convictions for whatever offences you should automatically be deemed guilty of whatever the DPP charges you with after that. Think of it as an incentive scheme not to rack up loads of convictions.

Millicent

Hijpo wrote: »

Wernt the birmingham 6 sentanced in the uk? Thats a bit diffrent than some low life who repeatedly.offends because anytime hes caught he can get free legal representation. If it was costing him he might have a diffrent take on it.

Seriously? That's your argument? That legal aid should only apply to the UK because we don't have any wrongful convictions here?

Hijpo

Millicent wrote: »

Hijpo wrote: »

Wernt the birmingham 6 sentanced in the uk? Thats a bit diffrent than some low life who repeatedly.offends because anytime hes caught he can get free legal representation. If it was costing him he might have a diffrent take on it.

Seriously? That's your argument? That legal aid should only apply to the UK because we don't have any wrongful convictions here?

No, i dont know why yourself and k-9 are reading into my posts so much. im commenting on the OP and saying that if the repeat offenders had to pay to get represented then maybe they wouldnt go breaking the law so freely.

Millicent

Hijpo wrote: »

No, i dont know why yourself and k-9 are reading into my posts so much. im commenting on the OP and saying that if the repeat offenders had to pay to get represented then maybe they wouldnt go breaking the law so freely.

Free legal aid is not why criminals offend though. I know it sounds wishy washy, but if you are poor and accused, you still need (and have a right to) legal representation. Even if you are a reoffender, you're presumed innocent at each trial and have a right to representation. What if the Birmingham Six were reoffenders and were denied representation for a crime they didn't commit?

Hijpo

Millicent wrote: »

Hijpo wrote: »

No, i dont know why yourself and k-9 are reading into my posts so much. im commenting on the OP and saying that if the repeat offenders had to pay to get represented then maybe they wouldnt go breaking the law so freely.

Free legal aid is not why criminals offend though. I know it sounds wishy washy, but if you are poor and accused, you still need (and have a right to) legal representation. Even if you are a reoffender, you're presumed innocent at each trial and have a right to representation. What if the Birmingham Six were reoffenders and were denied representation for a crime they didn't commit?

Im not saying its why they offend, but having to pay could be an added deterrant thats all. I see your point about the birmingham 6, im just viewing it from a point of repetitive convictions for similar offences like assault, drunk and disorderly, breaking and entering, robbery etc, the lower end of the scale but extremely common.

Killer Pigeon

*Sigh*

Okay, the big deal here is as follows:

Free legal aid fees were cut but state prosecutor's fees weren't cut.

Basically this meant that solicitor's representing the state were getting more money than those who were representing the accused (and no, not everyone who claims free legal aid is a criminal with previous prosecutions).

Personally, for the goodness of keeping a fair trial, I don't think this was really fair. State prosecutor fees should be the same as free legal aid fees, it's all public money after all. The state should not really favour any one side involved.

As far as I gather, solicitors who gained a large amount of their firm(s) income from the free legal aid campaigned to have the state prosecutor's fees reduced, which I believe they were successful in doing.

What's happened now is that this same group of solicitors are campaigning for there not to be any more cuts in the free legal aid.

Just to be clarify. Many solicitors who find work through the free legal aid scheme, usually don't rake in a massive salary, even in the top firms. I'd say it would be hard to find a solicitor in that line of work who earns more than €60,000.

Everyone who goes to court should have the right to be represented fairly and this is the service a lot of these solicitors are providing. I hate the way solicitors are all being tarred with the same brush, simply by common stereotypes.

K-9

Hijpo wrote: »

Wernt the birmingham 6 sentanced in the uk? Thats a bit diffrent than some low life who repeatedly.offends because anytime hes caught he can get free legal representation. If it was costing him he might have a diffrent take on it.

Ah, not as simples as you made out then.

mackg

Hijpo wrote: »

Im not saying its why they offend, but having to pay could be an added deterrant thats all. I see your point about the birmingham 6, im just viewing it from a point of repetitive convictions for similar offences like assault, drunk and disorderly, breaking and entering, robbery etc, the lower end of the scale but extremely common.

The deterrent should be that multiple convictions will lead to a fitting punishment, but it doesn't it leads to suspended sentences or worse a slap on the wrist. I'm not saying imprison anyone who is caught doing anything but repeat offenders need to be sentenced to deter them as well as others in the future. You're approach to the problem hurts everyone, guilty or innocent, needlessly when a solution that only hurts the guilty is staring you in the face.

The other possibility is for someone with we'll say 3 convictions or more free legal aid is provided but if proven guilty they owe the state the legal costs but that just popped into my head there so I have not really thought it through.

Hijpo

K-9 wrote: »

Hijpo wrote: »

Wernt the birmingham 6 sentanced in the uk? Thats a bit diffrent than some low life who repeatedly.offends because anytime hes caught he can get free legal representation. If it was costing him he might have a diffrent take on it.

Ah, not as simples as you made out then.

Pretty simple until ye throw catholics in britain with a link to terrorist organisations leaving a city full of protestants just before bombs go off into the mix :-)

Hijpo

mackg wrote: »

[

The deterrent should be that multiple convictions will lead to a fitting punishment, but it doesn't it leads to suspended sentences or worse a slap on the wrist. I'm not saying imprison anyone who is caught doing anything but repeat offenders need to be sentenced to deter them as well as others in the future. You're approach to the problem hurts everyone, guilty or innocent, needlessly when a solution that only hurts the guilty is staring you in the face.

The other possibility is for someone with we'll say 3 convictions or more free legal aid is provided but if proven guilty they owe the state the legal costs but that just popped into my head there so I have not really thought it through.

I agree that the punishments are lenient and that it would be better to increase the severity. I fail to see how having to pay for legal aid after repeated offences is hurting everyone though. If you keep your nose clean, you wont be brought to court, you wont need to pay for solicitors. From experience, thats my take on it.

kraggy

LighterGuy wrote: »

I hate solicitors.
Scum. Just utter scum.

Think about it, even if a decent bloke studied to become one. The nature of the job will turn him. Lying and twisting events. Repersenting blatantly guilty people. And I hate all that "ah people are innocent until proven guilty" bollocks out of them. Its just an excuse to justify the nature of repersenting a scumbag.

Somebody has to represent them in court. Just because they represent them, doesn't mean they agree or support them.

It's a necessary part of the legal system.

Ellis Dee

billybudd wrote: »

Crime is lucrative, no overheads and with todays crazy judges not much risk.

There must be some risk, because our prisons are severely overcrowded. And only a small proportion of their inmates are there for not having a TV licence and ridiculous things like that.:rolleyes::rolleyes: