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?

you don't know that. If they walk free, they have been judged not to be criminals.

What is your alternative then? We just decide which people look guilty and lock them up because we feel like it?

Crown Court I know - is approx 57-58% (last time I looked) - no ideas on magistrates - but then the attrition rate is huge - I don't think that just because something didn't make it to court - it should just be dismissed out of hand.

go my views on what I think should happen are clearly posted on this thread - and they aren't "lock em up and throw away the key".

If they walk free, they have been judged not to be criminals.

I wouldn't say that's necessarily so, GoS. It could - and often does - mean that on that occasion the CPS hasn't presented a strong enough case to get a conviction.

What you have described sounds like what I witnessed.
For reasons I wont go into, I watched a case at a crown court,in the public gallery.
I cannot remember if the person in the dock had pleaded guilty or not.
But the case,which I watched from part way through,seemed quite bizarre.
The defence lawyer,the prosecutioin lawyer and the judge all barely looked at the defendant at all. They had legal books they were looking at,and quoted legal cases from the books at each other. It all felt a bit like a play. The judge occasionally looked at the accused to ask if he understood this or that,and that was about it. Case closed,accused given 18 months jail sentence.
I also thought that afterwards,the defence lawyer,the prosecution lawyer and the judge may all have gone off somewhere together for coffee or something stronger.

My post was re mayorquimbys post.

2011 Conviction rates

Mags court - 78%
Crown court - 83%

These figures of course will include a proportion of cases where the person has committed the act but the court/jury has decided they have a valid defence. eg a defence of self-defence to an assault.

"I wouldn't say that's necessarily so, GoS. It could - and often does - mean that on that occasion the CPS hasn't presented a strong enough case to get a conviction."

And if they haven't secured a conviction, they are deemed not guilty. So not a criminal in the eyes of the law. So, exactly as I said.

those are interesting, I am going to go back and source where I got my 57-58% figure from, I have only been reading re rape/sexual assault.

By tried does it mean where there is a "not guilty" plea, or do they mean everything that went to court, including guilty pleas.

So you saw a hearing for sentencing, amillionyears?
In which case, I guess, the lawyers present would have been discussing guidelines, etc., possibly with defence counsel making a plea in mitigation. All sounds quite regular to me, as does the possiblity that they went for a drink afterwards.

Could still have other convictions, GoS...
'Not a criminal' is not the same as not being found guilty (beyond reasonable doubt, blah blah) of a specific offence. SWIM?

Well obviously, but the context was in one particular instance rather than as a career!

If you are tried for one crime and not convicted, you are not a criminal as far as the law is concerned (notwithstanding any previous convictions that would render this determination invalid)

Ok, I have had a further look at the link provided, and this springs out

link

In 2011, 86 per cent of offenders sentenced at the Crown Court pleaded guilty to the offence.
Most frequently, where a guilty plea was made, the plea was entered at an early stage of the proceedings, with 74 per cent of offenders pleading guilty either before or at the Plea and Case Management Hearing (PCMH).
In 64 per cent of cases, the plea was entered at the first reasonable opportunity.

If you take that and the 83% quoted earlier (I dont understand the reduction from 86%-83% but I assume its to do with cases falling through between a gulty plea and a sentencing hearing), it suggests to me that practically every not guilty plea ended in a not guilty verdict and as stated way way back, the prisons are full of people who have pleaded guilty.

This in turn suggests that in most trials, defendants are found not guilty, indicating to me, that victims are not getting fair trials.

But that is based on a 2 second look at that website, which I have now bookmarked for a better look tomorrow.

I think the figures include all cases, including where a guilty plea has been entered.

The thing is you wouldn't want a conviction rate that was much higher, as it would be an indication that the prosecution were only bringing cases where the chance of conviction was high, and were not proceeding to prosecute where the evidence is not clear - thereby increasing the risk of offenders not even being prosecuted.

This in turn suggests that in most trials, defendants are found not guilty, indicating to me, that victims are not getting fair trials.

can you explain the logic of that statement please?

I thought CPS already only brought cases if there's a 'reasonable' (reasonably high?) chance of conviction?

Ok, taking aside the drop from 86% guilty to 83% convicted, (don't understand that), the guilty pleas and conviction rates are remarkably similar, Ill just use 86% to illustrate my point (these are the Crown Court figures).

Conviction rate in a Crown Court is 83%. Of those convictions, 86% have pleaded guilty.

That means only 14% of cases ever go to trial on a not guilty plea, and the "not guilty (or not convicted) is 17%. Meaning, most trials result in a not guilty verdict, add this to this massive attrition rate and huge levels of under reporting generally.

But as I said, I havent spent any detailed time looking at the site yet.

From a quick look those conviction rates are for cases that go to trial and don't include guilty pleas.

Just to clarify Thistledew they wouldn't include those found to have a valid defence, they would be acquitted. Unless a partial defence in a murder case.

What you have to remember is that with regards to the 86%, they plead guilty because they know or have been advised that the evidence against them is such that conviction is almost inevitable. I have yet to meet a criminal who throws up his/her hands and pleads guilty where there isn't enough evidence to convict! Each of the victims to those crimes have got justice.

Sorry to jump in on this but are those figures not suggestive that in fact significant numbers of those charged plead guilty, perhaps on advice of legal representatives that on the basis of evidence against them they are likely to be found guilty and therefore with fewer 'guilty' defendants going to full trial it is more likely that the aquittal rates are g

or they dont want to take their chances on not getting a reduced sentence.

Sorry to jump in on this but are those figures not suggestive that in fact significant numbers of those charged plead guilty, perhaps on advice of legal representatives that on the basis of evidence against them they are likely to be found guilty and therefore with fewer 'guilty' defendants going to full trial it is more likely that the aquittal rates are going to be higher as you are weeding out the clearly guilty earlier.

I'm on my phone so can't read this properly but hopefully this explains the gist of my point

Celtic - yes, sorry I wasn't clear- those people who raise defences are part of the people acquitted. I mentioned this to illustrate that it might be agreed that the defendant did the act, rather than in cases where the prosecution are not able to show that the person was involved or that they did the act complained of.

Ah I get you. Was confused.

Im more confused by those stats now after half hour of looking than I was when I started looking. I cant find it broken down by offence either, which is where my real interest lies.