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.

Peter Sutcliffe said himself that if he could convince them he was mad, he'd do a few years in a loony bin. He is now deemed to be mentally healthy, yet he's still in hospital. I'm clearly no expert regarding criminal law, but I am entitled to have opinions about it...

Vampyre it is standard procedure for a lesser sentence to be given if someone pleads guilty which is basically what you mean by admitting in court. The reasons for it are sound for starters it saves the victims from having to give evidence, it also shows that the person acknowledges the crime which is an important point. Insisting on absolute maximum sentence if someone pleads guilty will just ensure no one does.

Peter sutcliffe is deemed as mentally stable as long as he stays on his medication, thats slightly different.

and it's that part which I find questionable. If someone pleads guilty to killing a child, I would feel that only the maximum sentence was appropriate. Bear in mind, I haven't insulted defence lawyers, I am saying that I personally would find it very difficult to do.

Are you in England and Wales steff? Some of your points differ a little from how things happen here.

Op, I've looked up Peter Sutcliffe's case. He confessed to police so not much doubt there with all the other evidence. However, he tried to make a defence of diminished responsibility due to mental illness but it was rejected and he will serve a whole life tariff. He's currently in Broadmoor but I don't think that is better than prison. It's probably worse in many regards. So he had a defence that was argued by his defence team and he was still given 20 life sentences and held fully liable for his actions.

No, I'm in Ohio.

If there is no advantage to someone pleading guilty then why would they? There would always be the chance they could be found not guilty it wouldn't matter how small a chance it would be worth trying. Imagine the distress for the parents having to sit through it though.

Sutcliffe was initially found 'sane', no diminished responsibility when committing the crimes - they were found to be calculated. he was sent to hospital after being attacked by another inmate. that's how much doubt there re his mental health.

Ah I though you were in US :) We don't have plea bargaining here in quite the same way.

it must be truly harrowing and a huge ordeal for victims and their families and I would not wish it on anyone.

He wasn't found "sane". His defence of diminished responsibility was not proven. There is a difference.

Oh, really? How does it work there? Here, generally the prosecutor will say, "if you plead guilty, we will give you 10 years, but you'll get 25 if the jury convicts you," or whatever, and then the defense and the accused decide if they want to take it. If they take it, everyone goes to court for sentencing, and if the judge thinks it's appropriate, he imposes the sentence.

Or, sometimes, the defense attorney will look at what the prosecutor has, and then initiate a conversation about a plea, if they feel the prosecutor's case is too strong. Regardless, it's up to the defendant if they want to take the deal or not.

My husband's best friend is a public defender. He feels he's morally bound to ensure his client gets the fairest trial possible.

read that on wikipedia. I've also read 'somebody's husband, somebody's son' and 'wicked beyond belief' quite some time ago and can't recall all the details but I do remember that his mental health was open to debate between psychiatrists.

must be truly harrowing and a huge ordeal for victims and their families and I would not wish it on anyone.

I would think so, too, but people often say it's very cathartic to get to go to court and tell their story.

Tuesday 5th May 1981, Trial proper starts.
As Sutcliffe had already admitted guilt, the jury were instructed by the judge to consider his sanity, and to find him sane or insane.

steff I guess different people have different ways of coping, I can see that it could be helpful, in a way, to a victim to talk about it.

at least 3 sources say that Sutcliffe was found 'sane' in court originally. I personally don't believe, from what I've read, that responsibility was at all diminished when he committed any of the murders but there will be many who disagree.

That aside, my point was that I don't envy the job of a defence lawyer. It doesn't seem like the kind of thing you could switch off from.

I'm not a lawyer so please excuse me if I have the details slightly wrong, but in England and Wales it is the sentencing judge or magistrate who makes the decision. Plea bargaining as it exists in the US legal system does not exist here, although there was some talk about brining it in for complex fraud cases.

I think, but might be wrong, there are sentencing guidelines that include suggested reductions for pleading guilty as well as minimum/maximum terms for custodial sentences.

steff for the record, i didn't mean confessing in court literally. I meant while a trial was ongoing. I've heard of people getting caught out during cross examination but not actually breaking down and confessing on the witness stand .

Mmm, be¡ng a fan of John Mortimer and Rumpole of the Bailey, I don't think it is a criminal lawyer's job to judge the guilt or innocence of their client, just to give them the best legal defense going.

Most defendants here don't testify in their own trials, so I guess they couldn't literally confess on the witness stand, anyway. :)

I recently read http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_by_Another_Name this. Its a pretty good example of what happens when a legal system exists with no effective defence.
Its not a good thing.

Vampyre every offence has a sentencing range. That range is not made up by defence lawyers on the spot, it is part of the statute. Since 2010 any sentencing guidelines have been defined by the Sentencing Council, which includes an element of public consultation. Where there are no sentencing guidelines for an offence (comparatively rare these days) the court must consider Court of Appeal rulings to ensure consistency and fairness. There is also a process by which the prosecution can appeal a sentence if they feel a sentence is unduly lenient and meets certain criteria. This happens comparatively rarely.

Mitigation forms part of the sentencing guidelines. It is a recognised part of the sentencing process. It is the mechanism by which the courts can recognise the individual circumstances of each crime within the overarching broad framework and pass sentence accordingly. It would be dereliction of duty for a defence lawyer NOT to seek mitigation for his or her client when the law and the sentencing guidelines provide for it.

OP you may not like the concept of an adversarial justice system, you may not agree with the sentencing guidelines, you may not uphold the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", but they form the bedrock of our legal system. The sentencing guidelines are tested daily in court, just as much as defendants are. And fortunately for anyone accused of a crime, the processes and punishments have been dispassionately devised by people steeped in the law, not a random layperson who thinks X should happen because they personally don't like Y or who decides that A must be guilty without testing the evidence.

Defence solicitors don't make up the legal process, they are simply part of that process ensuring it is adhered to.

And I say all that as someone who works for the CPS!

1. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial.

1. In a fair trial, guilty people against whom there is sufficient evidence should be convicted.

1. The Judge decides the sentence (within a range determined by the Sentencing Council/Court of Appeal). To get it right, they need to have all the relevant information, both that which would increase and reduce the sentence. Defence lawyers are trying to help the Judge find the right sentence. They do not ignore what their client admits/has been proven to have done. Sentencing is very subtle and difficult.

Imagine a scenario where Man A punches Man B. I would want a different sentence where:
a) Man B had a minor bruise and quickly made a full physical and psychological recovery. Man A pleads guilty.
b) Man B falls over, hits his head on a curb, sustains a serious head injury, is in a coma for 2 months, loses his job, does not make a full recover and is left with life long care needs. Man A pleads not guilty, has a three day trial and requires Man B to give evidence and be cross examined.

Apart from the plea, Man A has done exactly the same thing above, but with very different consequences. If you give every one the "maximum sentence" the problem is, you can't give the really bad ones more. I would want paedophiles who abuse multiple children on multiple occasions to be punished more severely than someone who's done it once. Otherwise you might be hung for a sheep as a lamb. If you remove the different levels of sentence, there's no disincentive to minimise criminal acts.

1. Criminal defence work is really difficult, but not for the reasons you imagine. It is a hard slog that is very poorly paid compared to most other types of legal aid work. Doing a good job usually involved working for free out of hours. Solicitors are usually rota'd to be on call for night time/weekend visits to the police station on top of their normal office hours work. Clients are often vulnerable and difficult to work with, or can sometimes be unpleasant and frightening. The law and rules change all the time meaning being competent is expensive and time consuming. Frequently rule changes add extra work for no money. While you're slogging your guts out trying to be part of a fair justice system, the Government is misleading the public about who you are and what you do and is trying to make people think you're a greedy fat cat who needs your modest fees slashed.

Ok. You can only know if your client is guilty if they have told you that they are. There are very strict rules for what lawyers can do in these circs.

Btw a client will have told you they are guilty if they say so I did xyz and that amounts to the crime. If they say, iI am guilty that needs to be tested. Because a fair number of people say that out of guilt or without understanding what the crime really is.

If what they tell you amounts to a crime you can't put forward a different version of events and you can't call them to testify if they want to plead not guilty. What yoU can do is "test the evidence" ie cross examine prosecution witnesses. This is very important to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

I can see in terms of cross examination that lots of people have a problem with eg lawyers saying "you are lying aren't you"" to a six year old victim of sex abuse. There are a few points around that:

• 1. The UK and indeed US and other common law systems are very bad at dealing with victims of crimes, in particular victims of sex crimes. But that isn't the responsibility of the person defending the accused, it is the responsibility of the system as a whole and in particular the prosecution (who very often treat victims as if they are incidental to the process).

1. A criminal barrister on here a few weeks ago talked about how proud she was of her ability to cross examine vulnerable witnesses without being aggressive or accusing them of lying. This sort of thing is very difficult and if the cuts to criminal legal aid funding go ahead, and we see fewer specialist lawyers in this field is something we will see being done increasingly army.

1. The defence lawyers job is to defend their client fearlessly. Those are the words used in the professional standards code. Not doing your best for your client is a breach of the code.

In addition, criminal defence solicitors will do all sorts of stuff such as sorting out bail, advising on prison conditions, explaining to their client how to ensure their family doesn't become homeless when they are behind bars. This sort of stuff is vital in ensuring that the UK system is subject to the sort of scrutiny we expect in a first world and democratic country.