nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Conor74,
Are you a solictor? or have a family member or a someone close who is one? Your replies and the amount of times you've posted in this thread is very defensive. It comes off as an vested interest that opposes to any negative opinion.

Yes.

Alternatively you might say I'm one of the few on the thread who actually knows about the issue, knows how instructions are taken, knows how cases are presented etc.

Instead of "lawyers lie and like the Ayatollah and Iran". We don't. No client is worth my practising cert, no matter what nonsense people believe.

Speedwell

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes.

Alternatively you might say I'm one of the few on the thread who actually knows about the issue, knows how instructions are taken, knows how cases are presented etc.

Instead of "lawyers lie and like the Ayatollah and Iran". We don't. No client is worth my practising cert, no matter what nonsense people believe.

Well, we understand that you don't, but most of us are interested in why solicitors do. And I'd always understood that a defense attorney's main job was to make sure the accused had a right to tell their side and be protected from overzealous prosecution. Even more than that, every case won by the defense means the government doesn't always get whatever it wants just because it wants it, which is rather important. Prosecutors need to be careful and fair and truthful. If they can't make an adequate case, then the presumption of innocence is there, and the defense needs to stand up for it.

Pat Mustard

Cathy.C wrote: »

The lawyer (David Aylor) for the cop (Michael Slager) that shot a black guy (Walter Scott) in the back as he ran away from him after a traffic stop in April of last year, without question quit as soon as he became aware of his clients guilt. Or at least aware that the cop's story didn't match up to video footage that became available a few hours before he decided to quit.

I'm just going to be awkward here and point out that the statement delivered by that lawyer is not a good example of a lawyer taking a moral stand.

If he didn't want to act for that man, then he didn't have to make any public statement: which begs the question as to why he made any statement at all.

That statement didn't help the accused, that's for sure.

wokingvoter

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes.

Alternatively you might say I'm one of the few on the thread who actually knows about the issue, knows how instructions are taken, knows how cases are presented etc.

Instead of "lawyers lie and like the Ayatollah and Iran". We don't. No client is worth my practising cert, no matter what nonsense people believe.

Honestly, when you read this thread you can see that most "lay" people glean their knowledge of the justice system, Gardas role, DPP role, defence solicitor role, prosecutors role, defendants position, alleged victims rights , ( "I'm taking him to court for vandalising my car") , juries role, Judges role, from watching American crime dramas.
Heaven forbid you would burst their bubble with reality.

Peter Anthony

wokingvoter wrote: »

Honestly, when you read this thread you can see that most "lay" people glean their knowledge of the justice system, Gardas role, DPP role, defence solicitor role, prosecutors role, defendants position, alleged victims rights , ( "I'm taking him to court for vandalising my car") , juries role, Judges role, from watching American crime dramas.
Heaven forbid you would burst their bubble with reality.

Just like their knowledge of the prison system is taken from American TV.

StudentDad

Peter Anthony wrote: »

Just like their knowledge of the prison system is taken from American TV.

With the hammering free legal aid has taken in the UK and people finding themselves increasingly unable to afford representation it's a slippery slope. I don't know if the legal system here is skiing down that slope, I hope not. If god forbid I ever wind up in an interview room looking at a couple of Guards I will bloody well be expecting my solicitor to be parked up next to me.

SD

Tea-a-Maria

StudentDad wrote: »

With the hammering free legal aid has taken in the UK and people finding themselves increasingly unable to afford representation it's a slippery slope. I don't know if the legal system here is skiing down that slope, I hope not. If god forbid I ever wind up in an interview room looking at a couple of Guards I will bloody well be expecting my solicitor to be parked up next to me.

SD

Funnily enough, the right of your lawyer to sit in on an interrogation with you was another misunderstanding picked up from TV. The Irish courts only recognised this right last summer. Until then you had a right to legal advice, but your solicitor couldn't actually sit in with you while you were being questioned.

wokingvoter

Tea-a-Maria wrote: »

Funnily enough, the right of your lawyer to sit in on an interrogation with you was another misunderstanding picked up from TV. The Irish courts only recognised this right last summer. Until then you had a right to legal advice, but your solicitor couldn't actually sit in with you while you were being questioned.

Every single crime drama episode since the conception of TV features the good cop/bad cop and the stressed lawyer repeatedly admonishing his client for not repeating "no comment " before eventually calling a halt to the interview in an exasperated manner.
"Officer unless you going to charge my client I suggest this interview is over!"

ToddyDoody

hairyslug wrote: »

How can anyone try and defend people like this.

For the money.

Better this than 9 euro an hour in call centre?

magma69

Most solicitors are scum bags imo. They'll happily represent somebody who they know is guilty and use flaws in the legal system to get them off regardless of doing what's morally correct. I don't know how they sleep at night tbh.

[Deleted User]

magma69 wrote: »

Most solicitors are scum bags imo. They'll happily represent somebody who they know is guilty and use flaws in the legal system to get them off regardless of doing what's morally correct. I don't know how they sleep at night tbh.

Could you clarify how many lawyers you know and a case where a guilty person "got off" due to a flaw, so we can examine what that flaw was. Usually the "got off on a technicality" line reveals a deep misunderstanding or ignorance about the laws relating to procedure and evidence, and their importance.

[Deleted User]

Even in cases where the person is guilty and has confessed they need a solicitor to make sure the law follows due process etc
They're there for the law

magma69

Deleted User wrote: »

Could you clarify how many lawyers you know and a case where a guilty person "got off" due to a flaw, so we can examine what that flaw was. Usually the "got off on a technicality" line reveals a deep misunderstanding or ignorance about the laws relating to procedure and evidence, and their importance.

You're clearly struggling with justifying your own profession by the looks of it.

I was a witness in a trial of an utter scumbag that got off. I've experienced it first hand. And you see solicitors defending people like that all the time in the newspaper.

[Deleted User]

bluewolf wrote: »

Even in cases where the person is guilty and has confessed they need a solicitor to make sure the law follows due process etc
They're there for the law

Not sure people get the importance of the laws of evidence, the importance of due process etc. They are a bulwark of democracy, to ensure that individual rights don't get trampled in the rush to get some decision, any decision, to satisfy public desire for a result. They are critical in the interaction between the State and the individual accused of an offence, and ensuring there is some fairness in what is naturally a very uneven balance of power. There are very imortant reasons why we are careful about character evidence, why accused people can only be questioned for certain duration, why evidence cannot be illegally obtained etc. etc...the stuff people usually dismiss as "technicalities".

[Deleted User]

magma69 wrote: »

You're clearly struggling with justifying your own profession by the looks of it.

I was a witness in a trial of an utter scumbag that got off. I've experienced it first hand. And you see solicitors defending people like that all the time in the newspaper.

Ah, so in accusing me of a bias you reveal your own.

And from this one case you have made a sweeping generalisation about the entire profession.

I don't think I'm the one struggling with justification here. You are the person who has confused your character assessment (he was an "utter scumbag"...) with guilt (...thus he did the crime).

magma69

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, so in accusing me of a bias you reveal your own.

And from this one case you have made a sweeping generalisation about the entire profession.

I don't think I'm the one struggling with justification here. You are the person who has confused your character assessment (he was an "utter scumbag"...) with guilt (...thus he did the crime).

You seem to have serious reading comprehension issues. I didn't say all solicitors are scum bags.

Secondly, I know he's a scumbag because I witnessed him being a scumbag. I was a witness in his trial. And the solicitor who defended him, knowing full well he did it, isn't much better. Pond scum is all those type of solicitors are.

[Deleted User]

magma69 wrote: »

You seem to have serious reading comprehension issues. I didn't say all solicitors are scum bags...

You said most were. Here is a direct quote in case you forgot your own claim...

magma69 wrote: »

Most solicitors are scum bags imo.

magma69 wrote: »

And the solicitor who defended him, knowing full well he did it, isn't much better.

Could you explain how you know as a fact that the Solicitor "knew full well he did it" and perhaps outline in greater detail why the case failed despite your inside knowledge. Because presumably there was a hearing before a judge and maybe a jury, so the reason for the case failing was outlined to some extent.

December2012

magma69 wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, so in accusing me of a bias you reveal your own.

And from this one case you have made a sweeping generalisation about the entire ).

Secondly, I know he's a scumbag because I witnessed him being a scumbag. I was a witness in his trial. And the solicitor who defended him, knowing full well he did it, isn't much better. Pond scum is all those type of solicitors are.

You witnessed the crime. Did you witness the solicitor being fully aware that he did it?

In that case, how did he get off? Was he properly prosecuted? Was all evidence present and correct?

Any holes in the evidence, statements, prosecution? That's the States job, btw. To prosecute.

4ensic15

Speedwell wrote: »

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.

It is not up to the prosecution to seek the maximum sentence. the duty of the prosecutor is to present the relevant factors to be taken into account in sentencing and then leave it to the judge. The bring to light the aggravating factors eg previous convictions, trauma for victims and counteract any overly stretched mitigating factors.
The job of both prosecution and defence is the same, to ensure the court has an accurate view of the relevant facts.

Speedwell

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is not up to the prosecution to seek the maximum sentence. the duty of the prosecutor is to present the relevant factors to be taken into account in sentencing and then leave it to the judge. The bring to light the aggravating factors eg previous convictions, trauma for victims and counteract any overly stretched mitigating factors.
The job of both prosecution and defence is the same, to ensure the court has an accurate view of the relevant facts.

Well, yes, in an ideal world and all.

Ulysses Gaze

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.

It's unfortunate this sack of **** did not get tried in Malaysia and had to endure their prison system.

4ensic15

Speedwell wrote: »

Well, yes, in an ideal world and all.

As a matter of fact the late Judge Carney criticised the DPP for refusing to suggest an appropriate sentence to him in circumstances where they would appeal him if he was too light. the defence don't want too low a sentence because it will result in an appeal which puts it up by more. Believe it or not but in sentencing, it is not an all out battle for the most extreme position for one side or the other. It is an attempt to get slightly to the right side of the middle ground for one or the other so that there is no appeal.

dennyire

Reminds me of the case in England ( I think ) where a guy was being tried for the murder of his parents and was found guilty.
His solicitor asked for leniency on the grounds he was an orphan.

poa

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.

I can answer this for you.
My sister is a barrister. Over the years she has defended; rapists, murderers, pedophiles, etc.
She feels apathetic towards who she represents; as its her job. The same as a Doctor doesn't look at women's breasts or vagina's in sexual way; it's his job.
She just focuses on doing the job which she is paid around 150 Euro per hour to do. It pays her mortgage, and her children's private school fees; like any job does. And that's the point, she doesn't go to work to feel anything, win or lose. She goes to work to do a day's work.
Money is why barristers work, it isn't a moral crusade. They honestly feel nothing win or lose, as both happen; regularly.
She is a member of a private members club, and has dinner with the judges and prosecution as friends after work. They are all friends, and defence/prosecution, win/lose after a day's work; never comes into it.
Monday defend a rapist, Friday prosecute a pedophile. It matters not, that's the job.
One can't get emotional about any of it, as then one isn't doing the job professionally.
Barristers and judges are hardened to hearing the worst of depravity as it goes with their jobs. When they finish for the day, they switch off from it.
One could not do the job professionally if one felt anything either way, that's the reality.
Justice means there has to be a defence and prosecution, and that is that.
Ironically she enjoys defence counsel more than prosecution, despite the abhorrent crimes.
In simple terms, it's a job not a moral crusade. The judges exact justice; not the defence barristers.

B.A._Baracus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Could you clarify how many lawyers you know and a case where a guilty person "got off" due to a flaw, so we can examine what that flaw was. Usually the "got off on a technicality" line reveals a deep misunderstanding or ignorance about the laws relating to procedure and evidence, and their importance.

Johnny Cochran comes to mind.

wakka12

Sounds like a question a little kid would ask.
They do it because sometimes they have to, somebody literally has to defend them in order for a fair justice system to operate and for law to be enforced properly in our societies. Its really very simple, anybody with a moral compass knows people like this are ****ing sick. Its not as if he genuinely liked the paedophile or wanted him to be let off early, he just needed to defend him as best he could in the court of law.

Pat Mustard

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Johnny Cochran comes to mind.

Yeah but if it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

Grayson

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.

They defend them because it's the right thing to do. A judge and jury must hear every single fact that could affect the case. It's the job of the prosecution and defence to present them. It's the job of the judge and jury to hear them and make their decisions based on them. You can't withhold anything. If someone is going to be sent to jail we need to make sure all the facts were heard first.

In the case you mentioned, the system worked. The guy had a fair trail and ended up being found guilty.

I very much doubt that his lawyer enjoyed the job, but he did everything that was legally required of him in the case.

Cienciano

Just listened to an interesting podcast on this subject. Only 30 minutes long, it's based on a real case, a serial killer and nasty piece of work called Robert Garrow. I won't give away anything, but definitely worth a listen, and how his lawyers handled it is regularly brought up in law school in the US.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/the_buried_bodies_case/

Pro Hoc Vice

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.

In Ireland a solicitor can refuse a brief but won't get much work if you in criminal practice if you don't act for criminals a barrister on the other hand is bound by the rules to act unless there is a conflict.