to think that being a criminal defence solicitor...

[VampyreofTimeandMemory]

must be a really difficult job for your conscience? inspired by reading a solicitor's comments about his client being 'lonely' and knowing what prison is like and not wanting to go back there... his crime involved 'trawling the internet' for illegal images. I would imagine finding it emotionally hard to defend a person who was definitely guilty of something so awful.

You lot are being unreasonable! Just because you feel you've talked something through and don't need to discuss it any further doesn't mean you should be rude to people who do.

Op wants to discuss a philosophical/ moralistic issue and has carefully phrased her question in a non offensive way.

No need for crabbit wenches to chip in if they dont want to

Op, I think that on the whole it's probably not quite how you imagine. The defense solicitor in the child abuse case I was involved in declared himself embarrassed and refused to represent my abuser. I was given to understand that essentially this meant his client had admitted it to him and he wasn't able to defend him anymore. This is probably not quite exact as I was only quite wee at the time

It's not the defense attorney's job to decide whether the client is guilty. It's simply his or her responsibility to make sure the person recevies due process. If a judge or jury lets a guilty person go free, that's not the attorney's fault.

thank-you herrena, I didn't realise that solicitors could refuse to defend someone and sorry that you had such a terrible experience, hope this post isn't insensitive.

Hmm I see both sides.

When my sister was 9 years old she was a witness in a case about a paedophile. The way the lawyer spoke to the children in court (through videos) was disgusting.

"But you're lying aren't you"
"You like making things up for attention don't you"

There was enough evidence that he was guilty, I'm sure the lawyer knew that. Speaking to young children like that to try and help a peadophiles case when you know the evidence is there - disgusting.

Incidentally he got a very long sentence.

I do agree that if there is reasonable doubt, the defendant deserves a fair trial.

It is not about deserving; it is about the right to due process of law. The purpose of the trial is to determine whether there is reasonable doubt.

what i'm saying though is if there is no reasonable doubt and the defendant is known to have committed a crime, it must be morally difficult to attempt to argue that he/she should receive anything other than the toughest sentence. for example, Peter Sutcliffe's defence arguing that he should be sent to psychiatric hospital instead of prison.

or if the lawyer believes their client to be guilty on account of the evidence.

So if you're mentally ill you shouldn't go to hospital?

Couldn't Peter Sutcliffe be both guilty and mentally ill?

if you read up on it you'll find that there's an awful lot of doubt about Peter Sutcliffe being mentally ill at all...

hence my using him as an example

What do you class as enough proof that someone did commit the crime and how do you test that proof to see if it stands up?

i have got no idea, i'm very far from being a lawyer of any sort but i have heard stories about defence lawyers suspecting their clients of being guilty.

I suppose if there's indisputable DNA evidence, that might be enough proof? or if the defendant confesses to someone else in prison perhaps.

I never understand these threads. The lawyer doesn't go in and argue for the sake of it. They have to argue a case where they discuss the evidence and points of law or establish doubt in the prosecution's case. They can't make things up or argue about something that is not evidenced.

I would much rather know that convictions and sentencing decisions are based on evidence, reason and the law then arbitrary decisions taken by goodness knows who. Surely it is better to know that someone is not just guilty but has been proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? And for that to be established the accused has to have a decent, fair and robust defence.

That doesn't mean that witnesses (including victims) shouldn't be treated with respect and dignity or that we shouldn't change laws on sentencing or due process or anything else that could be better. Those things are not mutually exclusive with the above.

Suspecting and knowing are two different things.

fair enough but i maintain that attempting to wrangle a lenient sentence for someone who has definitely committed an awful crime must surely not be easy on the conscience?

Errors are made with dna so in itself it is not indisputable proof. A confession to a third party in prison is also not proof, how can you be certain that the conversation took place you are relying on someones word.

Even if the lawyer suspects the person is guilty, we're all entitled to due process, and if there is reasonable doubt we have to trust it will come out in court. Suspicion isn't proof. Better for 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be imprisioned and all that.

As far as jailhouse snitches go, they often have their own agenda, and would be willing to say anything to get consideration on their sentence.

vampyre...

yes 'doubt' that he was mentally ill. it's not for his lawyers to decide but for the court.

really lots of ppl have tried to explain to you, its a very simple concept.

fair enough but i maintain that attempting to wrangle a lenient sentence for someone who has definitely committed an awful crime must surely not be easy on the conscience?

Here in my state, there are pre-determined sentences for crimes depending on the severity. There is some wiggle room, but the prosecutor and the judge both have a say in that, too. The prosecutor can refuse to allow a plea for a lesser sentence, and if the prosecutor allows it, a judge can still disallow it. That would be concerning guilty pleas, of course.

If we're talking about actually going to court and presenting a defense, a defense attorney is called by law to zealously defend his or her client. To do anything less would be morally wrong, IMO.

well possibly most evidence is probably circumstantial. but i cannot see how after a person has confessed to a crime in court, anyone would want them to serve less than the appropriate maximum sentence.

But the defence team don't make the decision about sentencing. They just lay out the defence. Ultimately the judge makes the decision in accordance with sentencing laws.

If there was no evidence how would they get a reduced sentence? Do you really think Peter Sutcliffe is in a psychiatric hospital because he defence team won a sort of debating competition in court? He will have been subject to psychiatric evaluation from experts in the field. That's a pretty bad example to pick because it may be that the prosecution were also supporting his detention in a psychiatric hospital. I don't know enough about his case.

A better example would be Stuart Hall who pleaded guilty to some of the charges on file but not all and when sentenced only got 15 months despite the volume of charges against him. His case has been reviewed and his sentence extended.

thepg do not talk to me like i'm stupid. if you disagree with me, fair enough but it's certainly quite a complex concept.

There are lots of mitigating factors that go into a person's behavior, surely those should be considered when imposing sentencing.

How often to people confess to crimes in court? On the witness stand, like in Matlock?

If they are going to make a plea, the sentence is usually already decided by the defense and prosecutor before they get there, the judege just imposes sentencing.