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?

[CelticPromise]

In that situation your only professional duty its to the client and you are professionally obliged to act in their best interests. It couldn't possibly be in their best interests to answer questions admitting an offence when there isn't the evidence against them. You wouldn't last long as a defence solicitor giving advice like that!

I have no ethical problem with it at all. Professional ethics are different to personal ethics.

[thebody]

Because we live in a democracy and in our country it's up to the prosecution to prove guilt.

Yes obviously some bastards slip through the net but that's not the fault of the defence barristers rather the fault of the prosecution, police, and forensics not proving a case.

I speak as a parent waiting for a case to come to court where my dd was badly injured. Not here though abroad so not sure how this translates.

[amillionyears]

It sounds to me that being a defence lawyer can be somewhat of a dirty job that someone has to do. And that currently there is no viable alternative.
I do wonder if the defence lawyers,when 1 of their family is a witness to a crime,or is involved in a car accident that was not their fault, and the other person gets off on a technicality,its sounds like they would be ok about it because the prosecution were better than the defence.

Has the system ever hurt any of you personally?

[lljkk]

I feel sorry for the lawyer "advising" Radovan Karadzic. If it were my job I would have to view it as an important court role for its technical value and just concentrate on procedures and steps of what to do. Because as a human being, RK is as scummy as they come.
Thing is, the conviction won't be sound without good legal advice and proper legal procedure, so we (humanity, justice) need a decent lawyer on RK's side.

[wordfactory]

To me being a defence lawyer is no more a dirty job than being a copper or a prosecutor (who are both aware that oon some occasions innocent people are charged and convicted). You either believe in the rule of law or you don't. You either accept the rule of law as part and parcel of a civilized and intelligent society or you don't.

[Spero]

amillionyears - it is almost as if you assume ALL defendants are guilty and anyone trying to defend them is complicit in their guilt?

Apologies if that is not what you think, but it is certainly how I read your post.

Most defendants are guilty but some are not. But that is really irrelevant - the point is - as many have said repeatedly - you either have a rule of law that applies to all, or you don't. And without the rule of law, presumably the only other option is gangs of people deciding to administer 'justice' to people they 'know' are guilty?

I know which society I prefer to live in.

[TheOneWithTheHair]

It sounds to me that being a defence lawyer can be somewhat of a dirty job

You are forgetting the satisfaction of getting a truly innocent person off. Not all defendants are guilty and the ones who are innocent need defence lawyers too.

[amillionyears]

Didnt know most defendants are guilty.

[lljkk]

By the time a case reaches trial the odds are high that the defendant will be found guilty. It would be a waste of resources to get that case that far, otherwise. So the police & CPS understandably focus on cases that only have the best chances of conviction.

The reason the defendant is probably guilty at this point is because the defence lawyer is presumed competent and will contest the evidence as much as possible. The only way you can have faith in any conviction is by having good quality counsel available to the accused. If convictions are made on poorer quality evidence, then the odds increased that the real guilty person(s) will get away with it & commit the same crime again, or worse. I find that a horrifying prospect. I made this point aaaaaaaggges ago on this thread.

There are justice systems which don't start out with a presumption of innocence for the accused. That don't automatically offer good quality legal representation to suspects. They tend to be in countries with rather poor reputations.

[Spero]

So amillionyears what do you think would be better than the current system of a presumption of innocence and robust defence lawyers?

Guilty if looks creepy? Guilty if your 'instinct' tells you? Guilty he if or she has precious convictions?

Don't really understand what your beef is, to be honest.