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?

LastMango,perhaps it was a hearing for sentencing,as opposed to a trial? i dont know.
I think what surprised me the mpst apart from the fact that the defendant seemed somewhat incidental to the whole proceedings,was that the legal people seemd so chummy with each other. I always thought they would have been somewhat at each others throats.
The chumminess element somewhat alarmed me. It was easy for me to think that all sorts of things could go on behind the scenes.

I always thought they would have been somewhat at each others throats.

I think maybe that comes from films/TV where legal reps are passionately entwined in their clients' cases?
Which isn't to say that RL lawyers can't be passionate about their cases, just that RL professionals tend to be a bit more professional than fictional ones. (Well, let's hope so, anyway...)
So there's no reason for opposing sides to be antagonistic towards each other, no reason that that would help advance anyone's interests.
It's not uncommon for colleagues who get on very well to work in opposition to each other on a case. Why wouldn't they? The work has nothing to do with how they feel about each other personally, nor should it.

The chumminess element somewhat alarmed me. It was easy for me to think that all sorts of things could go on behind the scenes.

But you were at a public hearing, no?
So you saw what went on, what discussion, etc.
So where was the opportunity for something untoward (i.e. concerning this case) to go on 'behind the scenes'?

Also, WRT the defendant seeming 'incidental'.

If the lawyers were working with facts, guidelines, etc., then in some ways, the defendant's presence was incidental. (S)he would still have been there as obviously (s)he would have aright to be there, to witness proceedings, continue to instruct representative, etc.
But (without meaning to sound flippant or sarcastic), it would hardly be appropriate for the lawyers to turn to the defendant and ask 'What do you make of all this then?' or turn and eyeball the defendant to try and get the measure of whether they liked the look of them, etc.

I'm going to make a final comment, then I'm going to hide the thread, I am trying to get on with my life, I am not very good at it (getting on with life).

Speaking personally, when you have seen a rapist walk free, someone you KNOW with 100% certainty, is guilty, you aren't left with a great deal of faith in this system, you have already spent the run up to the trial, reading account, after victim account, you prepare yourself, to be called a liar, to be attacked in court, you tell yourself the defence lawyer is only doing their job, the rapist is only trying to save his own arse, literally.

All you are left with is questions, that no-one can answer.

The support (what little there is), confirms, this happens all the time, and quite likely will happen to someone else, they focus on helping you understand that isn't your responsibility.

There is sleepless night after sleepless night after sleepless night, after sleepless month and sleepless year, only now, with no hope.

You no longer have any faith or belief in justice, you fear for the safety of your children and you trust, NO-ONE, not even yourself and your own judgement any more.

However unpleasant it may be for defence lawyers to be called liars, and I can see from this thread there are some with integrity, it is 1 million billion times worse to be called a liar in court, and to watch a rapist go free, to be judged by his friends, and his family, as a liar and for him to be vindicated in calling you that.

For a defence barrister, its a job, you go home at the end of the day, secure in the knowledge you are an essential part of the legal system (which I actually agree with at the moment).

For a victim of these sorts of crimes, you have just been branded a liar, in some peoples eyes, for life.

And all the while you know, 6%, just 6% of reported rape and sex crime results in a conviction, and those convictions are often for lesser charges. It doesn't matter what comes after, what conviction rate happens in actual court, you are suppose to feel somehow "lucky", that you are one of the lucky few that managed to even get there, that you have cast some shadow of doubt on the perpetrator.

Life for you, will never ever be the same.

Me I can't even tell the therapist how I feel anymore, I have been forcing myself to move on with life, for so long - even I don't know what is real anymore.

Off topic, but then the thread has moved way off topic anyway.

mumsbum I think you are confusing the victims rights with the State's right to bring criminal charges. A victim has no real action in a criminal case. It's the State against the accused, not the victim.

A victim MAY bring a case against the accused in civil court (in the US and I assume in the UK) for what was done. The most famous of this type of case is of course, the OJ Simpson case.

The State screwed the pooch on that one, but the victim's family didn't, and they were able to punish OJ for what happened. So there are remedies for victims, they just don't always involve putting someone in jail.

The Jerry Sandusky case is another where some of the victims will very probably bring a civil case against Sandusky for what he did to them. (and this on top of serving 30-60 years in prison).

"It's not uncommon for colleagues who get on together very well to work in opposition to each other on a case".
Maybe because it is getting late,but my mind is boggling on how that works.

re "behind the scenes"
From an ordinary persons point of view,ie me,law seems and looks confusing and difficult to understand.
So,from what I saw,it is easy to think that any group of the legal people involved in a certain case,if chummy, could quite easily stitch up the victims and or the accused. We,as Joe Public,wouldnt really know if we were being stitched up or not.

"It's not uncommon for colleagues who get on together very well to work in opposition to each other on a case".
Maybe because it is getting late,but my mind is boggling on how that works.

It works in that both are working to a set of rules, both within a set procedure and system, both dispassionately to clear and separate goals.
No need to be shaking fists and snarling at each other.

Why would it be in the interests of the legal profession to 'stitch up' the public? What would be gained from that?

amillionyears I agree that to a non-lawyer it can be very distressing to see opposing counsel being friendly. You want your counsel to be as invested as you are. I do try to not be too chummy in front of clients for this exact reason. But I am always polite and professional. Some clients even think that is wrong!

I have a funny story about chummy attorneys. I had a client's mother who told me she was certain that her divorce attorney had been married to her husband's divorce attorney (and thus why she'd not gotten what she'd wanted from the divorce). They'd both had the same last name, you know: Esq.

monster, a victim should have more rights in court, as I described below, most importantly to me, the right to question the defence so they cannot make unchallenged accusations as part of their summing up, also defence barristers should be required to stick to the evidence and not throw in whatever they feel like, in the same way as the prosecution.

Why should the defence get to produce witnesses the day of the trial, in some cases witnesses the victim has trusted and relied upon, up until the actual trial, while the prosecution has to provide the defence with a list of witnesses.

Does a victim not have the right to know they are relying on someone who is planning to give evidence against them?? Actually you don't need to answer that, I already know from personal experience, the victim doesn't have that right and the defence can basically produce whatever evidence/witnesses they like, whenever they like. They are not subject to the same rules as the prosecution. I know this from finding a close (and I mean close) family member, outside the court, waiting to be a defence witness when a week before we were out having a meal and I was crying on their shoulder, its more violation of victims and betrayal, heaped on top of what has already happened.

Victims don't have rights. Defendants have rights, victims don't have legal representation, defendants have legal representation.

And as for civil prosecutions, they are beyond the means of most day to day people, and we wont discuss the effect and impact all of this has had on a victim already, most of whom have families relying on them and whether the emotional strain of a civil case, if you have the rather large sums of money needed to action one, may be more than they can bear.

I understand only too well how the system works and how some not all barristers will play it. Thats an improvement on my views prior to this thread, a belief that there are some good defence barristers.

I don't think, and never will think, the system is working for victims - however well it is working for defendants.

No system that allows rapists and child abusers to walk free on a regular basis, is, IMO, working, and like any system, there is always room for improvement.

(ps - I would expect all parties to be civil to each other, I have no doubt they all attend the same law society events, thats professional)

But the trial isn't about the victim, it is a trial of the defendant.

That is exactly right - Sad thing to me - is you don't actually see what is wrong with that statement.

It should be about both - both parties should be held to equal standards.

mumsbum I can only say that I have never had a trial where the defense could produce a witness that had not been previously named to the prosecution. That's not actually possible where I practice, so I don't know why that happened in your case. it seems it would be grounds for an appeal if the case turned on that witness's testimony. I think your big complaint is with the prosecutor, not the defense. But again, that's just going by what I know here.

And whether or not the prosecutor tells the victim everything that is happening isn't set in stone either. Which is unfair for the victim, I agree.

And yes, it is harsh, but the defense should be able to produce any witness that will shed light on the case. That's not to say the witness is always willing (they must go if subpoened) but yes, just because you are friends with someone who saw you drive into the other person doesn't mean the other driver can't call them to testify against you.

I can see why you feel betrayed, and I can certainly see why you feel like you do. But the system really wasn't set up to help victims, it was set up to punish defendants. Again, the reasons behind this system are valid and good, and in many cases the outcomes are also just.
But not all cases, and that is a reality that we as a society have to wrestle with. It can be changed, and does get tweaked all the time, but sometimes that isn't enough or in time.

there are victims right groups who are working on changing some of the things you have been subjected to. And different jurisdictions handle these cases differently, there are situations where the victim is allowed to confront the defendant directly in a court sanctioned setting.

I am Not saying the defence shouldn't produce whoever they like - but that the victim should have the same rights as the defendant to question the "evidence" that is being used.

And also the right to choose who they have in their life - exactly the same as the defendant.

I am aware of victims rights groups and work towards implementing some of my ideas - but it won't happen quickly.

I didn't actually give an opinion about whether it is wrong or right.

I know how it is - I dont need to be told - anyway bed - DH cross (in a concerned way).

mumsbum again, the victim does have that right in their own civil case.

Monsterchild has a point mumsbum. Why don't you take some advice about bringing a civil action against this man? You won't be able to send him to prison but if you succeed you will be able to claim substantial damages against him and you will have the vindication of a judgment saying he has done what you claim.

The standard of proof that you have to meet is lower- you would only have to prove the facts on the balance of probabilities rather than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. You know where your case lacked evidence before, and can address this before you proceed. In a civil case you can also get orders for the other party to make disclosure of documents that might not be admitted in a criminal case.

We have considered a civil case - I know the burden of proof is lower - but we can't face it and can't afford it. It was suggested to u's months ago.

I know there are "blame and claim" type firms who do take on sexual abuse cases, a quick google shows that but this has been traumatic enough.

It is an idea that rears it's head every now and then.

When I'm not so - I'm not sure what the right word is, traumatised, bitter, I plan to work with victims and find some solace in helping others - but it's not the right time yet - I'd do more harm than good.

As far as this system goes - the guilty should be found guilty, the victim should know the likelihood of that is high if they go to police, not slim.

The fact it isn't like that - I think it would be easier to bear if we were unique, but we aren't - far from it, miscarriages of justice work both ways - I'd stake an awful lot of money that far more often they work against the victim.

(as an aside I may look into how long we have to take a civil case - but unless it's free - financially this has crippled us as I can't work, other than school run, I rarely leave the house).

But thank you both for the suggestion - it is kind - and I think good debate is important.

PS - I know (well guess) if you are a defence barrister - for you it's not a miscarriage of justice it's the system working, but that's not how it seems from the point of view of a victim.

I reallY am hiding this now - thanks for all the responses to me and generally - it's been interesting and has changed my view of barristers - if not the system.

Do remember though that if a case is taken to court, there is an 83% chance of conviction. I would not describe that as slim. The chance of conviction only drops where there is a not-guilty plea.

Does the lawyer profession sometimes feel that Joe Public walks into their world, a bit like a fly going into a spiders web?

Actually,that may sound a bit harsh.
I think it was the comment about " But the trial isnt about the victim, it is a trial of the defendant" that triggered it.