How do solicitors/lawyers defend bad people

hairyslug · 04-06-2016 06:09AM #1

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 · 04-06-2016 06:18AM

It's called the justice system. Google it.

LightsStillOn · 04-06-2016 06:34AM

It's their job, simple as that.

04-06-2016 06:47AM

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 · 04-06-2016 06:52AM

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.

04-06-2016 07:04AM

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 · 04-06-2016 07:14AM

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 · 04-06-2016 07:25AM

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 · 04-06-2016 07:29AM

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.

04-06-2016 07:57AM

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?

04-06-2016 08:11AM

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".

04-06-2016 08:15AM

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 · 04-06-2016 09:22AM

[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 · 04-06-2016 09:27AM

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 · 04-06-2016 09:29AM

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 · 04-06-2016 09:30AM

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 · 04-06-2016 10:10AM

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.

04-06-2016 10:14AM

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.

04-06-2016 10:18AM

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 · 04-06-2016 10:24AM

Where do you draw the line OP?

Kids?
Murder?
Rape?
Torture?

Where is your "indefensible" line?

vicwatson · 04-06-2016 10:32AM

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 · 04-06-2016 10:35AM

Lawyers...awful soulless creatures..

Drumpot · 04-06-2016 10:38AM

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 · 04-06-2016 10:42AM

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Lawyers...awful soulless creatures..

Garda????

Please enlighten us as to why you know this.

paudie2005 · 04-06-2016 10:47AM

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 · 04-06-2016 11:11AM

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 · 04-06-2016 11:11AM

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 · 04-06-2016 11:28AM

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 · 04-06-2016 11:40AM

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 · 04-06-2016 11:47AM

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 · 04-06-2016 11:51AM

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.

How do solicitors/lawyers defend bad people

Comments