Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Immoral Jobs

2»

Comments

  • #32
    LadyJ
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,122 ✭✭✭LadyJ


    bounty wrote:
    bendibus: they should bend the rules, to "let right be done"
    If you start bending the rules all the time then how can anything "right" ever be done?

    A person should only be convicted if their guilt has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

    We can't just go around arresting people for no reason and putting people on trial with no real evidence,which is what would start happening if we were to start bending the rules.


  • #33
    theTinker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 638 ✭✭✭theTinker


    I disagree that this lawyer of Ian huntleys is immoral, he could be but thats nothing i would judge sum1 of based on his occupation. As likely as it was that he knew huntley was guilty, certain jobs are needed to be done like his, Should a man who has killed before automatically be isolated from defense? of course not. So the lawyer has to do his job for the greater good imo.

    Thats my theory anyways, Ive ALWAYS had a horribly strong conscience and If i met a lawyer that was defending sum1 who did anything wrong to women or children or anyone that didnt deserve it, I doubt in my heart severely that i could look past it regardless of wheter it was 'socially right'. Mostly because they could be defending the type of person that would hurt people i care about, my anger and sheer rage would build to relentless levels and get the best of me. I would also NEVER do a job myself that required sumthing immoral, i couldnt sleep for **** if i did. So im a hypocrite :) but in this instance i allow it. Im sure alot of people feel the exact same. Idea and practice is very hard to get right.


  • #34
    abetarrush
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,221 ✭✭✭abetarrush


    Dentist / GP


    Chargin a weeks wages for 1 hour work max seems pretty damn immoral to me


  • #35
    bounty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 978 ✭✭✭bounty


    LadyJ wrote:
    If you start bending the rules all the time then how can anything "right" ever be done?

    only bend the rules on rare occasions, like the judge curtin case, how would changing the day on the warrent +1, change the evidence collected? i think the dail agreed with this point, thats why they set up the committee


  • #36
    slipss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭slipss


    BendiBus wrote:
    It's up to a jury of your peers (that means ordinary everyday people like you and me) to decide if you're guilty. It would be totally wrong for a lawyer to decide you're guilty and **** whatever the jury might think. The same way a judge can't order a guilty verdict. We have enough miscarriages of justice without making it even easier to get things wrong. Put forward a proper prosecution AND a proper defence and the truth is most likely to come out. Decide in advance and you'll get it wrong too often.

    That's why a lawyer is duty and morally bound to properly defend their client. It's not just for the sake of the client, it's for the sake of justice as a whole.

    If only that was the way it worked. Judges order guilty verdicts every day. Not everybody is afforded a trial by jury, in most district court cases it is the judge and not a jury that rule guilty or not guilty, there isn't a jury present.

    And to the people that say how can a lawyer defend some they know is gulity, well like Sarge pointed out, they can't. A solicitor or barrister can't make a statement in court they know to be untrue, if you tell them you are guilty then they can't put in a plea of not guilty for you. They may suspect your guilty and plead your inocence but that is different from knowing 100% for sure that you are guilty.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Sangre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,240 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    The right to a jury is only guaranteed for criminal trials. Although many minor offences are tried without jury as the defendant has waived his right to jury in favour of a lower maximum sentence e.g. the most he can get before a Judge is 1 year but he can get 3 in front of a jury if found guilty.
    Certain civil matters are afforded a right to jury as well e.g. defamation (very serious matter here as boards can tell you).

    People have to realise that lawyers aren't just defending individual people but the integrity of the entire judicial system. It is there job to ensure their client is the victim of abuse of process and receives a constituionally guaranteed fair trial.
    Although a lawyers' loyalty is always first and foremost to the court, hence why he can't lie or cheat for his client.

    In the vast majority of cases people aren't defending murderers and rapists, they're defending people ACCUSED of these offences. Big difference. We must always uphold the presumption of innonce and we can never give into the media driven mob mentality.


  • #38
    iFight
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭iFight


    bounty wrote:
    only bend the rules on rare occasions

    But you still need to draw a line somewhere, where would you?


  • #39
    Sangre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,240 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    But its very easy to obtain a new warrant if there is due cause. Letting them avoid the time limit on a warrant will only cause lazy, sloppy Gaurda work.

    The whole Curtin fiasco arose because the Garda misinterpeted when the warrant ran out (think of it as working days vs. actual days) The court said they got it wrong, the warrant was out of date and the evidence was inadmissible, hence there could be no trial.


  • #40
    Laredo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26 ✭Laredo


    Sangre wrote:
    But its very easy to obtain a new warrant if there is due cause. Letting them avoid the time limit on a warrant will only cause lazy, sloppy Gaurda work.

    The whole Curtin fiasco arose because the Garda misinterpeted when the warrant ran out (think of it as working days vs. actual days) The court said they got it wrong, the warrant was out of date and the evidence was inadmissible, hence there could be no trial.

    And that is how the legal system makes a mockery out of justice.

    It was never a case of the Gardai abusing people's rights to not be searched without due cause as in the examples you gave. They had obtained a warrant properly, it was hours out of date and was used because of an error in interpretation. with the evidence they already had a second valid warrant for the time they did search would have been given.

    Yes, technically they were in the wrong but in any sane system reason would allow for the possibility that mistakes do occour and give leeway as long as they were not intentional perversions and did not materially effect a person's rights.


  • #41
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    This thread kinda reminds me of this other thread in the Legal Discussion forum!

    It's about how frustrated people get with the law, and how rigid it is.

    My thoughts on this subjects (from the other thread):
    I think that the main problem with the law is that it doesn't cater or allow for common sense. Everything is so structured, every word can be analysed and argued over and interpretted differently that it has to be. But people get frustrated with this.

    For instance, there was the case a few years ago about the judge (can't remember his name) who was accused of possessing child porn, the Gardaí raided his computer, found the porn, and because the warrant was out of date, he walks around as an innocent man.

    This is the type of thing that has people like myself incredibly p*ssed off!

    Now I know how important the law is (and indeed consider anarchists to be f*cking idiots!!!), but then again, in situations like this, I find myself thinking "the vigis would sort this f*cker out"!

    I think that's the main problem -- when we all know someone is guilty as sin, and the evidence even tells us that (OJ Simpson?), yet the law can't put them away.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Sangre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,240 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    DaveMcg the law really does cater for a lot of common sense, its just that the area of criminal law is so serious. One can't put a man behind bars without reasonable cause, the damage to your reputation would be irreperable. These rules and technacilties have developed over hundreds of years to prevent past, actual casaes of abuse and miscarriages of justice.

    Now the Curtin case, well frankly I really can't see how the evidence wasn't allowed. It was a mere interpretive miscommunication.
    But (and this is the main reason these type of judgements occure) at least the Gardai willl NEVER do it again.


  • #43
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 25,004 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Sangre, I have to agree with DaveMcG, if a court can't see the common sense that any child in the street can, it's a pretty poor court.

    Sure, there needs to be protection from expired warrants being used years after the fact but there also needs to be leeway for the court to determine that the facts of the case over-rule the letter of the law in circumstances like the Curtin Case.

    People should not be able to get aquitted, or cases get thrown out of court on technicalities. Common sense must prevail ahead of the anal adherance to the exact measurement of the law. Hell, it's widely known that many of those writing legislation deliberately leave loop-holes they can use later in their legal careers.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #44
    Sangre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,240 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    Breaking into someone's house and finding illegal materials means you can't use them for a trial. There is no valid warranty, thats a techniciality. If the warrant is invalid it doesn't exist in the eyes of the law. Unfortunately since the only available evidence against him was based on someone ILLEGALLY entering his house, then the evidence can't be used. You can't give leeway on something as intrusive and damaging to your reputation as a search warrant.
    Sure sometimes guilty people go free but thats essential evil of maintaining a fair due process. Judges have thrown out cases where the defendant is almost certainly guilty as a way of punishing those who brought the case e.g. the confession was beaten out of him. The court can't be seen to allow suspect evidence, it must be seen to be protect the court process from improper use.

    Unfortunately Sleepy, as I have found time and time again from caselaw, there is no such thing as common sense. You can have two polar opposite positions that are both equally logical and rational (extreme example the abortion case). In this case court must decide which is more common sense, a proper judicial process or having one guilty man going to jail. Due to the evolution of the court process through out the centuries and problem of miscarriages of justices the court will invariably choose the former.

    Although an entire case being thrown out on a 'technicality' is very, very rare and really occurs only in criminal cases because of its seriousness.
    I completely understand your point and it is despicible that such men walk free but this scenario is one of between a rock and a hard place.

    Its like the example of free speech, where do you draw the line? Unfortunaly racist rants in papers is one of the downsides of total free speech (not here of course). And in this case some guilty men going free is the downside , but the upside is an innocent man will RARELY find himself on the wrong end of a sentence.

    And on your last point Sleepy regarding delibrate loop-holes, I'm going to go and call that utter crap. Legislation is normally drawn up the most respect legal minds in that area working together as a committe, then the legislation must pass the Senate and Dail (both containing formidible legal minds). The House is not going to let a piece of law go through without considerable legal scrutiny.


  • #45
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 25,004 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Sangre wrote:
    And on your last point Sleepy regarding delibrate loop-holes, I'm going to go and call that utter crap. Legislation is normally drawn up the most respect legal minds in that area working together as a committe, then the legislation must pass the Senate and Dail (both containing formidible legal minds). The House is not going to let a piece of law go through without considerable legal scrutiny.
    Then we need to reconsider who we respect as legal minds. Most legislation I've read has been riddled with loopholes and written in unnecessary legaleze that if avoided would have lead to a better formed law.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #46
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 25,004 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Breaking into someone's house and finding illegal materials means you can't use them for a trial.
    Do you not think we should question why not?

    If it comes down to the right of a paedophile to privacy versus the right of children to be protected from his activities, I don't think anyone can question which right is more important. The courts need to be able to reflect this. EVERY time, not just when it suits them to let someone off because he's part of their old boys network and 'sure all he did was look at a few pictures' :rolleyes:

    The legal profession in this country is an absolute disgrace and I'd wager illegal under our cometition laws should someone have the balls to take them to point on it.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #47
    BendiBus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,074 ✭✭✭BendiBus


    Sleepy wrote:
    Do you not think we should question why not?

    To prevent mob rule, trial by press and abuse of power by the authorities? Existing procedures are there for a very good reason.

    In recent days, a newspaper has accused a FF councillor of snorting coke. Should a Garda, sat in his squad care, reading that in the Star be able to decide there and then to kick in the councillors door and lave a look for drugs?

    If Garda management is pressured by the public/politicians for a result should they be able to bend the rules? Like the Birmingham six, Guilford four, or possible Barry George in the Jill Dando case?

    You can't make up the rules as you go along.

    What happens if the Gardai decide you like to smoke a joint at home every now and again? Are you happy for them go break into your house on a hunch? Or because they saw you hanging around with someone they know who smokes?

    Where do you want to draw the line? As far away from yourself as possible, I suspect!


  • #48
    Sangre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,240 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    Sleepy wrote:
    Then we need to reconsider who we respect as legal minds. Most legislation I've read has been riddled with loopholes and written in unnecessary legaleze that if avoided would have lead to a better formed law.
    Examples? I'm quite impressed by your ability to do so, surely you've an undiscovered talent there!

    Legalese is unfortunately necessary sometimes so we know exactly what is being referred to. You have to be so specific when it comes to law and thats why 'legalese' has developed.

    So Sleepy you'd have no problem with police being able to barge into your house, armed anytime they want, whenever they feel like it? You wouldn't care what your neighbours, family or employers would think? You wouldn't find your house being torn apart traumatising?
    You think this is perfectly acceptable in democratic society?


  • #49
    Mrs. MacGyver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,294 ✭✭✭Mrs. MacGyver


    Dog Catcher
    Sales people in shops on comission (the annoying ones who say "can i help you/get this in your size?"


Advertisement
Advertisement