To ask how defending Lawyers/Solicitors sleep at night.

[lollilou]

When they are defending someone who is accused of a horrible crime and that they know are guilty yet have to come up with a defense to try to get a not guilty verdict? It must happen a lot, how could you live with yourself in that situation? What if the accused gets off then commits another crime?

I think it is a very good question, and as someone who already had a good understanding already of the legal system

a) I too have learned a lot from this thread - Kungfupannda especially has been enlightening
b) I have revised my opinion that all barristers who defend scum are also bottom feeders themselves

Just from this small representation of the legal profession, I can see, that there are defence barristers out there who do genuinely care about the legal system.

If people don't ask, they don't learn, discussion never happens and change doesn't occur.

My guess is that dramatists love to explore this (ie, I blame TV), which occasionally provokes some people in real life, keeps the "issue" more present in many minds.

I've so many lawyers & their friends in my family & their social circles, & we never discuss this stuff. Never.

If you want to believe in the justice system delivering justice, there must be strong representation on both sides. Maybe some aspects of it need tweaking (like victim asking questions points).

As an American attorney who has worked as a defense and prosecuting attorney (but now do civil work) it's nothing like the tv shows, AT ALL. Much less exciting, much more boring and tedious.

think focusing on the hideousness of the publicized trials is the wrong focus. Most criminal cases where I am plea. Very few actually make it to trial. When they do, it's because the defendant's position is they are not guilty, or the evidence showing guilt just doesn't seem to rise to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt." If you think you're client is being railroaded by the police, or was set up, or was beaten, then charged with resisting arrest, hell yeah you are going to try to show that to the judge/jury.

Just because you on the outside think you know all the facts of the case, well, you don't.

It's not a criminal case, but the facts in the notorious McDonalds coffee case were so horrific that the Judge actually had to REDUCE the sentence the jury (who before hand were livid they were even hearing such tripe) gave.

So yeah, I sleep just fine at night, thanks!

What is the role of defence lawyers/barristers is a good question.
How do you sleep at night is a fucking horrendous and offensive question.

See the subtle difference?

Actually its something I have pondered, because I believe barristers are highly intelligent and do have an inkling whether their client is guilty or not, I have wondered, how you sleep at night, knowing you have had a part in letting a rapist, a child abuser, walk free, especially if at some point, they re-offend and are convicted and you find out about that.

I have a better insight into how now, some don't care, others care about the "justice system", others are able to blank out their personal views to the point, they don't form them.

I wonder the same about some jurors. I would refuse to sit on a jury for a trial similar to the one I experienced, I don't believe I could be impartial.

In an ideal world,[and I may be talking very naively], any defence barristers who know[without being told by the accused] that the accused was guilty,
wouldnt then defend them.

amillion, if I have understood rightly the posts on this thread, unless there has been a confession, a barrister has a duty to defend their client, to the best of their ability, the barristers view of the innocence or guilt of their client is irrelevant.

and in fact, to refuse to defend the client, on the basis of their own individual view would be to undermine the principles of the justice system.

I am willing to stand corrected if I have read wrongly.

actually my uncle is a defence lawyer just doing his job i guess and everybody is entitled to represetation

I would refuse to sit on a jury for a trial similar to the one I experienced, I don't believe I could be impartial

I struggle with that, to be honest, because to me it almost amounts to 'It's too hard, I don't want to do it'. You can't just leave this stuff to other people. You have to try and put personal feelings aside and do your duty. Someone has to do it, why not you?

If you are a citizen of a country like the UK, then very little is asked of you in return for the incredible benefits of citizenship. It isn't even compulsory to vote. Jury service is one of the very few things people have to do.

But I wouldn't be impartial, I would go in there with a firm belief that victims don't lie, and that the accused was already guilty.

More unfair I feel would be to sit on a jury, with preconceived ideas and try to persuade other jurors of my view point. As I believe happened to us in reverse.

At this moment in time, I wouldn't believe my own husband if he was accused of something like this and he is my world, never mind a random stranger. I don't believe women and children lie about this sort of thing and it would be wrong to pretend I do.

I would happily sit on a different sort of case.

You can't defend someone you KNOW is guilty.

But without KNOWING that, everyone has the right to fair trial.

So in answer to your question - they sleep soundly.

NEXT!!

actually, thats not true, at the moment, its all too raw and I doubt I could enter the court building without sobbing, but in time I would happily sit on a different type of trial

CakeBump,but you can defend someone you know is guilty providing they havent told you they are guilty, because you are intelligent enough to have worked it out.

You can't know unless they've confessed though. You can suspect. It's different.

Perhaps a better way to understand is that it's not the defense's job to "get the accused off" it's the State's job to prove the person did the crime, and the defense's job to make sure the State does its job.

The State is completely powerful and can really do anything it wants to do. The criminal justice system is in place to restrain the State from doing that.

mumsbum it is highly unlikely you'd be asked to sit on a jury if you expressed that opinion. This is the purpose of voir dire, to make sure the jury members DON'T harbor prejudices that would make them unable to objectively weigh the evidence. No one wants jurers who can't be objective, it's not fair to anyone. This is why jury selection is an art of its own.

amillionyears it is rarely that clear, even smart people have prejudices and can be misinformed. And you can't know without a confession. You certainly tell your client that the evidence presented will very likely result in a conviction, or that you don't have much evidence to refute what the state has. But that's not the same as "knowing".

No, you cannot defend someone you know to be guilty: you would either know they are guilty because they told you that they are, or you would know they are guilty because you witnessed them committing the offence, in which case you shouldn't be representing them anyway. You may have a strong suspicion or belief that they are guilty, but that is not the same as knowing it. Even the jury are not told to convict if they know the person is guilty, but if they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.

As a barrister or advocate you have to let go of the ego of knowing, so that you can look objectively at all the evidence.

monster, having seen a juror, with their fingers crossed, appearing to pray they aren't selected, I did wonder, but yes I assumed, I would never be asked to sit on that sort of trial with my views, which I would honestly express. It would be fundamentally wrong of me to do so.

ah,thank you,those last 4 posts make things quite a lot clearer.
Hope they help the op and others.

x post.mumsbum posted just before I did.
I meant the 4 posts before mumsbums

"I have wondered, how you sleep at night, knowing you have had a part in letting a rapist, a child abuser, walk free, especially if at some point, they re-offend and are convicted and you find out about that."

Well the issue for me here is that I haven't done anything to allow them to walk free. The prosecution have failed to discharge the burden of proof.
If for example it involves a dodgy warrant etc. then it's not that the barrister has squeezed them through a loophole or gotten them off on a technicality as it is often portrayed, it's that the prosecution who are alleging a breach of the law have not followed the proper procedure and protections which apply to all citizens.
It's not a case of "win at all costs" and invent stuff to get them off. It's a case of, if you want to lock someone up for a crime then you had damn well better do it by the book.

The problem in your above post,mayorquimby,is that it appears you are saying that if you are better at your job than the prosecuting lawyer,you may win a case that you shouldnt have won.

In an ideal world truth and justice should come first.

GoSakuramachi An emotive thread title provokes an interesting response don't you think. But I absolutely disagree with your version of my post. By the way you may want to know that there was more behind my post than idle curiosity but I do not want to discuss that so this will be my last comment. EldritchCleavage Yes I think a citizenship class would be a great idea. I think we leave school with huge gaps in our understanding of society as a whole.