How do solicitors/lawyers defend bad people

hairyslug

There is a case over in England at the moment of a paedophile of possibly raped up to 200 kids, they can pin about 70 on him cause of videos and pictures he took and shared on line.
Before sentencing, his lawyer pleaded for a lenient sentence as he was young and had no previous convictions.
How can anyone try and defend people like this, even his parents, once they found out contacted the police.

degsie

It's called the justice system. Google it.

LightsStillOn

It's their job, simple as that.

hairyslug

hairyslug wrote: »

There is a case over in England at the moment of a paedophile of possibly raped up to 200 kids, they can pin about 70 on him cause of videos and pictures he took and shared on line.
Before sentencing, his lawyer pleaded for a lenient sentence as he was young and had no previous convictions.
How can anyone try and defend people like this, even his parents, once they found out contacted the police.

And teachers teach them, and doctors treat them, and electricians will rewire their houses, and shops will sell them groceries.

Remember, even the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four were represented. And they definitely did it, didn't they?

How do people come up with this stuff? Did you really think about the issue before raising it?

Cathy.C

When I seen the title I thought the thread would be about an article I read this morning about two young boys who suffered some horrendous abuse over a ten year period.

Sentence is a joke.

Cathy.C

Cathy.C wrote: »

When I seen the title I thought the thread would be about an article I read this morning about two young boys who suffered some horrendous abuse over a ten year period.

Sentence is a joke.

Bearing in mind that the sentence had to have a substantial reduction to reflect the guilty plea - that's the law - and couldn't be of the "50 years reduced to 45" type that would be flung out either on appeal here or to some forum like the ECHR...what sentence would you say was appropriate?

wokingvoter

hairyslug wrote: »

There is a case over in England at the moment of a paedophile of possibly raped up to 200 kids, they can pin about 70 on him cause of videos and pictures he took and shared on line.
Before sentencing, his lawyer pleaded for a lenient sentence as he was young and had no previous convictions.
How can anyone try and defend people like this, even his parents, once they found out contacted the police.

In other parts of the world, in countries much bigger then Ireland, there is really no justice system.
If a teenage virgin unmarried girl is gang raped, there are no judges, no juries, no solicitors, no evidence
A meeting of village elders will decide that she was to blame
Would you prefer that kind of system?

hairyslug

I mean morally, how can they stand up there and say "look, this guy isn't as bad as it looks, it's all a big misunderstanding" knowing full well the extent of the crimes

I understand everyone has the right to be defended but surely a lawyer has the ability to say no.

Cathy.C

Deleted User wrote: »

Bearing in mind that the sentence had to have a substantial reduction to reflect the guilty plea - that's the law - and couldn't be of the "50 years reduced to 45" type that would be flung out either on appeal here or to some forum like the ECHR...what sentence would you say was appropriate?

Look, just because a longer sentence might be appealed, does not mean that the sentence cannot be considered to be a joke. It sickens me how some people can rape children hundreds of times throughout their lives and yet get a sentence which is not far off the sentence that someone would get for commiting a single instance of the very same crime. What message does that send only 'Ah sure you might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb'.

Personally I think people that rape multiple children, multiple times, should receive two separate sentences (one for each child they have raped and abused) and those sentences should run consecutively. None of this concurrent bollox. It would be reduced on appeal you suggest. Perhaps you're right. Well then the system needs to change.

The answer to this goes all the way back to student debating, and the principles that it stands by.

I remember asking once, "how does one prepare an argument for something they, themselves, are against?"

The answer I got, "...with great difficulty."

It forces you to be clear of mind, to dismiss emotion & anger as false Satans that would consume us all Walking Dead style if we let it.

Lawyers are debaters, they don't have any convictions themselves. they pride themselves on being about to squeeze every drop, every morsel of good points for their side, whichever it may be. Their opinion of a case doesn't matter. It can't matter. The entire point of a court is that you wipe the slate, put all the facts, right and wrong, on the table and decide what is most just. For that to happen, you need the balance of the devil's advocate. A court with one side isn't a court, it's a lynching. And if one criminal deserves a lynch court and another a normal court, who's to decide that "THIS guy gets the lynch, THIS guy gets the normal court"? A judge?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Lawyers are debaters, they don't have any convictions themselves. they pride themselves on being about to squeeze every drop, every morsel of good points for their side, whichever it may be. Their opinion of a case doesn't matter. It can't matter. The entire point of a court is that you wipe the slate, put all the facts, right and wrong, on the table and decide what is most just. For that to happen, you need the balance of the devil's advocate. A court with one side isn't a court, it's a lynching. And if one criminal deserves a lynch court and another a normal court, who's to decide that "THIS guy gets the lynch, THIS guy gets the normal court"? A judge?

I agree with much of what you say and you say it well, but would amend one thing, rather than say "decide what is most just", I would say "assess the weight of evidence".

Cathy.C

Cathy.C wrote: »

Personally I think people that rape multiple children, multiple times, should receive two separate sentences (one for each child they have raped and abused) and those sentences should run consecutively. None of this concurrent bollox. It would be reduced on appeal you suggest. Perhaps you're right. Well then the system needs to change.

The prosecution runs the cases together.

If there was a risk of consecutive sentencing , I think the chances of guilty pleas would drop dramatically, trials would become much longer and more expensive. Why would the accused in the case referred to above for example plead guilty if he was going to get 28 years (longer than the average life sentence for murder)?

And of course lawyers would target the weakest link, the most questionable accusation, in the hope it would set up a domino effect.

Cee-Jay-Cee

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And teachers teach them, and doctors treat them, and electricians will rewire their houses, and shops will sell them groceries.

Remember, even the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four were represented. And they definitely did it, didn't they?

How do people come up with this stuff? Did you really think about the issue before raising it?

I agree with what your saying but you have question the manner in which some solicitors and barristers defend their clients. Blatantly lying about their client being remorseful, making up excuses and blaming drink drugs poor upbringing and everything and anything else to get a lesser sentence. Yes they are entitled to a defence and to fair law and procedure but that's where it should end. Lying and making up excuses isn't part of the justice system yet they all do it.

Winterlong

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I agree with what your saying but you have question the manner in which some solicitors and barristers defend their clients. Blatantly lying about their client being remorseful, making up excuses and blaming drink drugs poor upbringing and everything and anything else to get a lesser sentence. Yes they are entitled to a defence and to fair law and procedure but that's where it should end. Lying and making up excuses isn't part of the justice system yet they all do it.

That is probably more a relfection on the justice system though. That it allows presentation of how reformed the accused is, how they came from a deprived background etc. I dont like it personally, gives too much leeway in sentencing.

wokingvoter

hairyslug wrote: »

I mean morally, how can they stand up there and say "look, this guy isn't as bad as it looks, it's all a big misunderstanding" knowing full well the extent of the crimes

I understand everyone has the right to be defended but surely a lawyer has the ability to say no.

It doesn't have anything to do with a persons morals.
Or rather it does.
Morally, if justice is to be done, then everyone, absolutely everyone, no matter how heinous their crime, is entitled to make a case , under law, for themselves.
The person who makes that case for you must be a qualified solicitor.
The law is the most important element in a civilised society. The law must be obeyed.
That paedophiles solicitors are no doubt privately as nauseated as you, and don't forget, unlike you, they have had to spend time with him and listen to him, but as professionals they have to do their job.

Speedwell

I don't have a problem with lawyers defending horrible people to the best of their ability. Remember that the prosecution is also working as hard as they can to convict and get the maximum sentence. Without a thorough defence, the balance would be heavily shifted in favor of the disproportionate sentence that the prosecution is gunning for. Justice is usually somewhere between the two extremes.

Icemancometh

I understand how and why they do it on an intellectual level, and can't think of a superior, practical way to run a justice system. But on a moral level, I just can't get it. How do you wake up in the morning, knowing you have to do your utmost, to get a rapist or murderer 10 years instead of 15.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Blatantly lying about their client being remorseful, making up excuses and blaming drink drugs poor upbringing and everything and anything else to get a lesser sentence. Yes they are entitled to a defence and to fair law and procedure but that's where it should end. Lying and making up excuses isn't part of the justice system yet they all do it.

If it happens, could you cite one case where a solicitor or barrister "blatantly lied"?

I am not sure if you understand what happens. Lawyers take their clients instructions and present the case. No one is got to risk their practising cert to step outside that and tell lies. Of course they rely on what their client tells them, but any lawyer who stands up and goes against instructions and lies, risking their career for a client, is a fool.

People seem to forget that it's not the function of Solicitors or barristers to determine whether people are good or bad, or whether they are telling the truth or not. That is the function of the Courts.

Icemancometh

Icemancometh wrote: »

I understand how and why they do it on an intellectual level, and can't think of a superior, practical way to run a justice system. But on a moral level, I just can't get it. How do you wake up in the morning, knowing you have to do your utmost, to get a rapist or murderer 10 years instead of 15.

Are you saying that if there can be no mitigating factors in any crime? Ever? They are all the same? Or that the convicted person can't raise them? Or hire a lawyer to do so?

biko

Where do you draw the line OP?

Kids?
Murder?
Rape?
Torture?

Where is your "indefensible" line?

vicwatson

hairyslug wrote: »

I mean morally, how can they stand up there and say "look, this guy isn't as bad as it looks, it's all a big misunderstanding" knowing full well the extent of the crimes

I understand everyone has the right to be defended but surely a lawyer has the ability to say no.

Many do

the evasion_kid

Lawyers...awful soulless creatures..

Drumpot

I know several solicitors, one of whom is considered a top defendent of criminals. I asked one of them if he would defend somebody he knows was guilty and he said he just wouldn't or couldn't do it. So it's a choice to defend guilty and you need to be a certain type of person.

I agree that everybody deserves an impartial trial that includes independently unbiased defence.

That said, I cannot understand how somebody can willingly choose to work on a defence for somebody they know is either definitely or most likely to be guilty. I am not saying that this makes them guilty by association but it seems like you have to be of a certain type to be able to switch off your own personal morals to defend somebody guilty.

If you have a top lawyer who gets a rapist, killer or child abused off because of how good that lawyer is , how can that person live with themselves when these characters inevitably reoffend? Reminds me of the movie the devils advocate. Remember, to get a guilty person off, it also involves upsetting and potentially interrogating victims in an aggressive manner. So you could have situations where victims are being tortured during the trial!

I believe It's a red herring to suggest that they have zero moral accountability to the existing or future victims of the people they defend. The big thing is that our culture gives them a conscience free get out with the whole "I a just doing my job and everybody has a right to a fair defence ". But if the Job you chose (people aren't forced to defend the guilty) and the people you defend is putting guilty people back on streets to hurt people, I would ask if there's some sort of psychological trait required to be so cold and comfortable with this practise.

So let's say I a defending a child rapist/murderer and I know he's guilty. I have my own children so at least understand what it's like to love or take care of them. How does a person switch off their emotions and say "well they deserve a fair defence"? . Surely you need to be psychologically different to most people, colder and less emotionally switched on, to be able to perform your job without bias?!

My biggest problem with the system is that the strength of your defence can be more down to the depth of your pockets then your innocence but that's another argument. If the best criminal lawyer defends criminals then by default the system is not balanced in favour of the victim. Again another problem I have with the system when people talk about fair trials. How is it fair if I am a poor victim against a rich bastard?!

vicwatson

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Lawyers...awful soulless creatures..

Garda????

Please enlighten us as to why you know this.

paudie2005

Cathy.C wrote: »

When I seen the title I thought the thread would be about an article I read this morning about two young boys who suffered some horrendous abuse over a ten year period.

Sentence is a joke.

That's horrific, maybe I missed it in the article but couldn't see on what basis the last few years were suspended?

El Weirdo

Drumpot wrote: »

How is it fair if I am a poor victim against a rich bastard?!

In a criminal case, it doesn't matter a jot how rich or poor the victim is as it's the state that prosecutes.

Pat Mustard

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Lying and making up excuses isn't part of the justice system yet they all do it.

You assert that this is the case but that doesn't make it true.

The fact is that criminal lawyers make arguments and submissions on the basis of instructions from their client. If they guess it might be bullsh1t, then it isn't for him to decide because the lawyer is not the arbiter of fact. If there is a jury, the jury is the arbiter of fact.

There is a difference between guessing that a client is lying and knowing it. If a lawyer actually knows that the client will give false evidence, he cannot put him in the witness box to give that false evidence.

People may ask how do they sleep at night when they represent such criminals. The first reason is that they are just one element of the criminal justice system. It is for the State to prosecute, the jury to decide guilt (in a jury trial) and a judge to decide on matters such as admissibility of evidence and sentencing.

There are the old maxims that everyone is entitled to a defence and that it is better that 1000 guilty people go free than an innocent person be imprisoned. Remember that the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four served a lot of time before their convictions were found to be unsafe, eventually. Miscarriages of justice would be a far more common occurrence without criminal defence lawyers.

Also the morality of acting in criminal defence is not in whether the client is acquitted or convicted but in how well and how thoroughly the defence is carried out. Not quite the same thing but there may be some analogy in the All Blacks and the respect that they pay an opposing side by beating them by as high a margin as possible.

_Brian

hairyslug wrote: »

I mean morally, how can they stand up there and say "look, this guy isn't as bad as it looks, it's all a big misunderstanding" knowing full well the extent of the crimes

I understand everyone has the right to be defended but surely a lawyer has the ability to say no.

Good honest solicitors just present the facts and only the facts and ensure the law is adhered to for such clients. The idea is to have a judgement made that will stand appeal etc.

The problem arises when solicitors turn crooked and twist things to increase the defence of the client to get them off, this is rare but does happen.

Icemancometh

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you saying that if there can be no mitigating factors in any crime? Ever? They are all the same? Or that the convicted person can't raise them? Or hire a lawyer to do so?

Of course not, and like I said, I get it on an intellectual level. Every citizen needs protection against the power of the state. Just look at the US where the completely under-resourced legal aid lawyers can't provide a decent defence for the clients, and these people often end up cutting deals and confessing, when they might not have done it.

It's on the emotional level that I'm lost. That a good barrister leaves work thinking I've put a good shift in today, used my extensive training, talent, and experience to get that rapist back on the streets years earlier. It's keep me awake at night anyway.

December2012

I asked a solicitor this before. He worked in a criminal law firm in Northern Ireland.

He saw himself as a vital cog in the justice system. His job is to represent his client, to the best of his ability. It is up to the prosecution to prove the case. By having a strong criminal defense system in place it limits wrongful convictions and makes the justic system work. Crimes must be investigated, evidence must be presented, facts must be proved.

You may think - wouldn't it be great if the police could just put criminals away without all the palaver of court. BUT if that's the case, what's to stop that power being abused?

the criminal defense lawyer works for the benefit of the entire society.

Pat Mustard

Icemancometh wrote: »

Its on the emotional level that I'm lost. That a good barrister leaves work thinking I've put a good shift in today, used my extensive training, talent, and experience to get that rapist back on the streets years earlier. It's keep me awake at night anyway.

Supposing he sits on his backside and makes no objection to the introduction of inculpatory evidence (which should be excluded due to a breach of rules of admissibility of evidence), resulting in his client's conviction?

That might be a good day's work for the State but it might cause sleepless nights for the defence lawyers.

DEFTLEFTHAND

I watched a documentary on John Gotti recently and his lawyer Bruce Cutler is unbelievable.

To this day he maintains that Gotti was never in the Mafia. He was a hard working plumbing supply salesman from Howard Beach. The only reason the FBI were on his back was because they're prejudiced against blue collar Italians.

Icemancometh

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Supposing he sits on his backside and makes no objection to the introduction of inculpatory evidence (which should be excluded due to a breach of rules of admissibility of evidence), resulting in his client's conviction?

That might be a good day's work for the State but it might cause sleepless nights for the defence lawyers.

Absolutely. Mine isn't a rational position, it's emotional. You can't be reasoned out of emotion! A victim might want a brutal punishment as retribution, but that doesn't mean it's reasonable.

wokingvoter

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Lawyers...awful soulless creatures..

Until you need one because your in trouble.....

Samaris

Top lawyers can turn down a case if they just really can't cope with it, and the "ideal" situation for a defense lawyer is probably to have an actually innocent man with the weight of prejudice and circumstantial evidence against them and to argue so brilliantly in public that they swing everyone around to their point of view. But that doesn't really often happen. And a junior lawyer can't really afford to be too picky about the cases they take due to emotional attachment because they'll be seen as someone who is emotionally lead and unable to participate in the full justice system.

That faint sense of "how could someone defend that piece of scum" might be part of the distrust towards lawyers though. Maybe it feels somewhat dishonest to go against your own convictions for a legal system, a bureaucracy that many people disagree with elements of.

harry Bailey esq

They are paid handsomely to do so,morality goes out the window.

Muahahaha

During the Graham Dwyer murder trial the prosecuting barrister for the DPP was Sean Guerin. Remy Farrell was the barrister trying to get Dwyer off the hook.

Then just a few weeks ago we had the trial of David Mahon who killed his own stepson with a knife. On that occasion Remy Farrell was the prosecuting barrister for the DPP and Sean Guerin was defending David Mahon.

You could imagine the craic between Remy Farrell and Sean Guerin in the Kings Inns bar after a case- 'Got you that time Remy'! 'No worries Sean, but your client in this next case is going down'!

Its funny how it plays out that one case you're prosecuting a crazed murderer and the next you're defending one. But that's their job at the end of the day and they're obviously quite good at it if they're in such demand for high profile criminal cases.

bodice ripper

Creepy ad to go with thread...

Cienciano

Deleted User wrote: »

The answer to this goes all the way back to student debating, and the principles that it stands by.

I remember asking once, "how does one prepare an argument for something they, themselves, are against?"

The answer I got, "...with great difficulty."

It forces you to be clear of mind, to dismiss emotion & anger as false Satans that would consume us all Walking Dead style if we let it.

Lawyers are debaters, they don't have any convictions themselves. they pride themselves on being about to squeeze every drop, every morsel of good points for their side, whichever it may be. Their opinion of a case doesn't matter. It can't matter. The entire point of a court is that you wipe the slate, put all the facts, right and wrong, on the table and decide what is most just. For that to happen, you need the balance of the devil's advocate. A court with one side isn't a court, it's a lynching. And if one criminal deserves a lynch court and another a normal court, who's to decide that "THIS guy gets the lynch, THIS guy gets the normal court"? A judge?

This is a great answer

degsie wrote: »

It's called the justice system. Google it.

This is a retarded answer

OP asked an honest question, fair play to seaslacker for replying with a good well thought out answer

uck51js9zml2yt

Money speaks a lot louder than integrity for some people.
Saw it first hand a few years ago. The barrister was almost asking us to cannonise the toe rag.
A list of criminal activity as long as your arm !

Icemancometh

Icemancometh wrote: »

It's on the emotional level that I'm lost. That a good barrister leaves work thinking I've put a good shift in today, used my extensive training, talent, and experience to get that rapist back on the streets years earlier. It's keep me awake at night anyway.

But again that misses the point of their job. The barrister has not "put a rapist back on the street early", the determination of guilt is one for the Court, the assessment of the length of the sentence is again for the Court, or the prison system may decide to release a prisoner early. The barrister's sole function is to present the accused's case, not to add or change one single fact or instruction, to assess what is relevant at law etc. No barrister would present something he or she has made up, as you can appreciate the first person to complain will be the client. A lawyer can't even assert what they know to be untrue, it would be highly dangerous. And even in presenting the case, they must do so as officers of the Court - have seen Judges reprimand lawyers for trying to go down avenues that are offside in presenting a case such as making accusations about the victim or witness in an assault case.

Peter Anthony

Deleted User wrote: »

have seen Judges reprimand lawyers for trying to go down avenues that are offside in presenting a case such as making accusations about the victim or witness in an assault case.

Are you not allowed to do that, ie question the character of witnesses or victims ? Would have thought their previous character, and reliability was very relevant, and if not up to scratch should be brought up!?

monkeysnapper

wokingvoter wrote: »

In other parts of the world, in countries much bigger then Ireland, there is really no justice system.
If a teenage virgin unmarried girl is gang raped, there are no judges, no juries, no solicitors, no evidence
A meeting of village elders will decide that she was to blame
Would you prefer that kind of system?

I stumbled across a video on YouTube one night where the locals including small children watched while people beat a young Lady then set her on fire , when it looked like fire might be about to quench another lad doused her in petrol . absolutely horrendous stuff .

Everybody deserves a fair trial . like has been said here there's a lot of innocent people ever spent a life time in jail .

Icemancometh

Deleted User wrote: »

But again that misses the point of their job. The barrister has not "put a rapist back on the street early", the determination of guilt is one for the Court, the assessment of the length of the sentence is again for the Court, or the prison system may decide to release a prisoner early. The barrister's sole function is to present the accused's case, not to add or change one single fact or instruction, to assess what is relevant at law etc. No barrister would present something he or she has made up, as you can appreciate the first person to complain will be the client. A lawyer can't even assert what they know to be untrue, it would be highly dangerous. And even in presenting the case, they must do so as officers of the Court - have seen Judges reprimand lawyers for trying to go down avenues that are offside in presenting a case such as making accusations about the victim or witness in an assault case.

Doesn't all of that assume that all barristers are equal. Surely someone pays these fees to get better representation to get a reduced penalty. In that instance can't it be said that the barrister reduced whatever penalty they receive?

Peter Anthony

Peter Anthony wrote: »

Are you not allowed to do that, ie question the character of witnesses or victims ? Would have thought their previous character, and reliability was very relevant, and if not up to scratch should be brought up!?

There are rules about cross examining character, it can be dangerous and a Judge will warn that if you go too far down that road it can open up the accused to character evidence eg. submitting details of prior convictions during the hearing itself. So again the lawyer must clearly warn the client if the instructions are to do so. Even implying blame in a case such as an assault can see a Judge remind the lawyer that the witness is not on trial. I have seen Judges demand that lawyers apologise to witnesses if they have implied some wrong doing on their part.

Icemancometh

Icemancometh wrote: »

Doesn't all of that assume that all barristers are equal. Surely someone pays these fees to get better representation to get a reduced penalty. In that instance can't it be said that the barrister reduced whatever penalty they receive?

But the barrister is only there to present the accused's defence in the best way possible, and cross examine the evidence or testimony against his or her client. They will challenge the evidence and attack any weaknesses, but that's perfectly legitimate and indeed welcome in any functioning democracy where the legal system and fundamental civil liberties such as the presumption of innocence and the right to be heard are respected.

Cee-Jay-Cee

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If it happens, could you cite one case where a solicitor or barrister "blatantly lied"?

I am not sure if you understand what happens. Lawyers take their clients instructions and present the case. No one is got to risk their practising cert to step outside that and tell lies. Of course they rely on what their client tells them, but any lawyer who stands up and goes against instructions and lies, risking their career for a client, is a fool.

People seem to forget that it's not the function of Solicitors or barristers to determine whether people are good or bad, or whether they are telling the truth or not. That is the function of the Courts.

Yes I could but I won't in an open forum. I attend court regularly as part of my job, I've been to court literally hundreds of times. I see solicitors suddenly coming out with excuses based on Guards evidence. Yes they always spin the 'my client will say...' ****e but the client never says and never did say as the excuse only popped into his head based on something said in evidence.

And the one that really irks me is the solicitor defending a case and denying his/her client done what they're accused of yet when judgement is passed the solicitors suddenly have an excuse for why their client done what they denied they done 5 minutes previously.

riclad

The law in ireland is if you are on a low income ,
you are entitled to legal aid.
You are presumed innocent before you go to court,
who says so and so should not get a lawyer,
a drug dealer, someone who sells untaxed cigarette,s .
a burglar ?
Look at the innocence project in the usa .
Many people are in prison in the us cos of made up evidence .
eg hair sample evidence from the fbi lab
which was found to be false or misleading .
Many people have been released after 10-20 years in jail due to dna evidence
showing them to be innocent .

Cee-Jay-Cee

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Yes I could but I won't in an open forum. I attend court regularly as part of my job, I've been to court literally hundreds of times.

I have been going for 20 years myself and know one thing.

Not one of us think our practising cert is worth lying to get some fellow we'll probably never see again a few months off a sentence.

And that's not based on some morality thing. It's simply self preservation. If I lied and the client got jail anyway, I'd expect a fairly serious complaint to the Law Society and possibly a civil action against me. And your suggestion, that I can say I lied because I thought it would (or did) benefit him, would be no defence at all. Because the first person they blame after a verdict is their own side.

I have never ever used the "my client will say" without clearly knowing that my client will actually say it. Because if he doesn't, well that's just fairly stupid. It's a very bad lawyer who doesn't clearly know what his client will say to any relevant matter appearing in the evidence (and remember we have the book of evidence or Gary Doyle Order papers before, so we know what the prosecution and Garda witnesses will say and would have taken instructions on it).

lazybones32

hairyslug wrote: »

There is a case over in England at the moment of a paedophile of possibly raped up to 200 kids, they can pin about 70 on him cause of videos and pictures he took and shared on line.
Before sentencing, his lawyer pleaded for a lenient sentence as he was young and had no previous convictions.
How can anyone try and defend people like this, even his parents, once they found out contacted the police.

This bugs the sh*t out of me. It really does...Elton John's bf being in a 3some in a paddling pool deserves the full protection of the Law but an obvious danger to humanity is afforded protection because he/she can afford it.

feargale

hairyslug wrote: »

I mean morally, how can they stand up there and say "look, this guy isn't as bad as it looks, it's all a big misunderstanding" knowing full well the extent of the crimes

I understand everyone has the right to be defended but surely a lawyer has the ability to say no.

You should read up a bit on law and jurisprudence, because, quite frankly, you haven't a clue.