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.

I would question my moral code if I believed in a system that denied anyone representation at a criminal trial, even if they were guilty if the offence.

Society would be a much worse place without criminal solicitors, and surely most people can appreciate that, without having an in depth knowledge of criminal law.

I'm not saying it should be restricted because I have no idea how it would work in practise, as you say.

I just feel that some defence lawyers must not truly believe that if their client is guilty of a premeditated and horrific crime, that they deserve anything less than the maximum sentence.

However, it's very complex to me.

a lot of serial killers show no remorse at all kungfu.

again tired, I'm very glad there are criminal lawyers, if I had the power I wouldn't change it . i just can't imagine it always being easy on the conscience.

sorry, I meant reindeer.

But it's not your beliefs

Quite simply you're an advocate, in the most literal sense of the word. You speak on behalf of those who lack the confidence, knowledg or skill to run their own case.

I may personally think that people who steal to support a drug habit than people who do so for other reasons.
However my client will want me to tell the court that they only did what they did due to additiction.
I'm there to speak on their behalf and put their best case forward not to preach my personal moral code

But surely it wouldn't be difficult on your conscious at all, because you would be doing it because you believe in everyone's right to a fair trail and good representation (even if they are guilty as all get out). You do it because you believe in the system, not because you have a burning desire to see rapists and murderers roaming the streets with merry abandon?

But it's not your beliefs

Quite simply you're an advocate, in the most literal sense of the word. You speak on behalf of those who lack the confidence, knowledg or skill to run their own case.

I may personally think that people who steal to support a drug habit deserve longer sentences than people who do so for other reasons.
However my client will want me to tell the court that they only did what they did due to additiction.
I'm there to speak on their behalf and put their best case forward not to preach my personal moral code

A lot of people show no remorse. But very few look their nearest and dearest in the eye and tell them they killed someone for fun.

And serial killers pop up quite a lot in fiction and TV, but they're actually pretty rare in real life - I only know one other lawyer who's dealt with a multiple murderer.

The criminal justice system is constructed around the things that happen on a daily basis - not around the incredibly rare, high-profile cases that make the news.

kungfu the knowledge I have of serial murderers comes from the books i've read (and donated to charity because they're too grim for me now!) and I realise that they're rare but there are still a fair number of them and many show absolutely no compassion.

I'm glad we have people brave enough to do it - everyone deserves to be represented in court - regardless of their crime

These people presents facts - they don't stand up and lie - then a court makes the decision

I am thankful we have the legal system we do - it's not perfect but it strives to treat defendants equally and fairly

Vampyre I think it's a good thing you started the thread and I think you are right to bring it up. Criminal litigation is a morally complex issue (from every perspective) which very few people outside of the system really understand, so asking questions (and as you've shown, being willing to listen) is a good thing to do.

Criminal defence work is not "easy on the conscience". (Disclosure: I am not a criminal defence lawyer, but close friends and family are and I have studied law and done some non-law work around criminal justice). But the ethical dilemmas it poses are bigger than just "is my client guilty" (as someone explained upthread, if they confess the defence you can run is very minimal and technical).

For example, if my client says that they are not guilty but want to plead guilty just to "get it over with" do they understand what they are doing and the ramnifications of that decision?

What if my client is innocent? Defence lawyers I know says that this costs them more sleep than the other way way around!

It is hard work because it involves dealing with these sorts of issues in very stressful situations and lots of clients are hostile, evasive or obstructive. But it is absolutely crucial work. And for these reasons it is a travesty that funding has been cut to a point where many criminal lawyers cannot afford to live and continue in practice. (There was a thread a few years ago about a woman who was five years qualified and earning 23k a year. That 23k was not just pre tax and pre pension but pre all her expenses to - travel, paying the fees owed to her chambers, etc).

But you can't build a system around, or expect people to change their working practices for, the tiny minority. People write books about them precisely because they're rare and therefore media-worthy.

On the subject of serial killers, I don't think they get much or anything by way of mitigation once they are in the system. (From what I know, getting them into the system - that is investigating and connecting them to the murders, is usually the bit that falls down). To be fair, many do end up in places such as Broadmoor instead of prison. However, I don't see that as a bad outcome - they are as tightly controlled as they can be, and usually more so than they could be in a prison.

OP, 'true crime' books about dead-eyed serial killers are no way to gain an understanding of criminal law and its practices.

I still can't see how a paedophile should ever be excused.

A 12 year old who has sex with another 12 year old is technically a paedophile (presuming they are both prepubescent), do you think that they should be treated the same as a 40 year old who rapes a 12 year old?

What about other 'sex offenders'; the 16 year old boy who has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend? The law says he is a sex offender but do you believe that he should be treated the same as 30 year old sex offended who rapes a random woman in a late night attack down an alley?

That is why mitigation should always be presented to the court.

Fwiw I think the op got a slightly hard time at the start but I understand that when you've heard the question umpteen times it can grate, especially as its often couched in the terms of the other thread linked "how can you sleep at night" which is needlessly aggressive.

I don't find it difficult on my conscience nor do I know of any colleagues who do but I suspect that's because the criminal practice will attract those who've come to terms with the system.
The lack of money isn't the only reason so few barristers choose to practice criminal law.

SaraHillsBook exactly. Conflict of Interest and all that...

I agree with losing more sleep over innocent clients. The guilty ones you just have to be realistic with them over the progress of their case and likelihood of sentence, mitigate if you can but sometimes there is little mitigation and many aggravating features. You just do what you can in these cases.

My first clerked trial was for a very serious matter where the accused was looking at a sentence of 10+ years. He was completely innocent of the offence. It was horrendously stressful as by the time his case came to trial I had spent several months working on his case and seeing him fairly regularly.

It was that case that made me open my eyes to criminal justice in it's true sense (and stupidly switch all of my law modules to train in crime!).

I won't make a lot of money in the profession but i do believe in the system.

no i don't mean in those cirumstances. i mean a paedophile who gets kicks out of preying on children.

pigeon i'm not really attempting to gain knowledge of criminal law, i would be out of my depth. psychology interests me which is why I read certain books. any type of law seems so very complicated and i agree that it takes someone with balls to go into it.

Right, but if there was no defence solicitor, then how would judges know the difference between all those situations?

just to clarify, I wholly agree that anyone accused of a crime deserves a fair trial. the only bit i am struggling with is the idea of arguing that a paedophile/rapist/murderer should be given a lenient sentence. I understand that there are 'degrees' of crimes and I wouldn't feel the same about a person who had been abused by their spouse, snapping and killing them as I would about someone who fantasised about murdering someone, did it and then went to great lengths to conceal it. I don't feel that two teenagers having a consensual sexual relationship is the same as an adult who abducts a child and commits a sex crime. I get that it is not black and white.

I don't think that reading books or the internet or watching TV is a way to learn about criminal law. We have our justice system with EVERYONE having the right to legal representation because it works well 99% of the time. If people had no right to a defence then our justice system would be like North Korea.