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 have never said I don't think there should be defence lawyers. any number of serial killers is too many imo. I can think of at least 20. I know it's tiny when looking at the actual population but still too many really.

There are mitigating factors for most situations though. And all a defence solicitor is going is presenting all the evidence to the judge so they can decide. And lenient is a bit of a subjective term.

I really wouldn't know the correct terms to use, thankfully I've never been near a trial. I don't have the brains or the balls!

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

But that is the point of mitigation, to establish those differences and ensure that they are considered in court. The law says a sex offender is a sex offender, but they shouldn't all be given the same punishment because the individual circumstances can be very different. The criminal defence lawyer is responsible for ensuring that the judge has all relevant information prior to imposing the sentence.
The very fact that you have said 'I don't mean in those circumstances' illustrates the need for mitigation perfectly.

anyway, my question was whether or not it's a morally difficult job to do and a number of posters have said that no, it's not. It surprises me but I accept I am mostly totally ignorant when it comes to the ins and outs of criminal law.

and not once have i said there is no need for mitigation :)

No, but you did ask how those defence lawyers sleep at night after presenting their clients mitigating circumstances.

i certainly did not.

I agree with you OP. I don't think barristers even give a shit if their client is guilty or not. It's just point scoring and manipulating the law for the benefit of their client to get them off and therefore do their job and thus get professional kudos.

I have given evidence in a professional capacity by the way many times and seen the twattish behaviour of barristers at first hand.

The worse case IMO was the Dutch guy a few years back who killed the woman in her flat and then hid the body. It turned out that her body had been found tied up in a very specific position and the police had found snuff porn on his computer with bodies in exactly the same position.

The police were not allowed to present this evidence: the defendants barrister argued it was inadmissable. The defendant was then allowed to claim that he murdered her accidentally! Apparently the jury verdict was not unanimous and some jurors believed him which they would surely not have done if the police had been allowed to present all the evidence.

LOL at the posts from defence lawyers bemoaning their lot and how
poor they are since legal aid changed etc

Go and get a cleaning job then or work in a shop

I do actually think that legal aid cuts was a dreadful idea.

i didn't realise the cuts applied to criminal law either. shocking.

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?

Is trying to wrangle a lenient sentence not your interpretation of presenting mitigation to the judge? If it isn't then I have misunderstood and apologise.

no it's not - mitigation of course should be presented but i was wondering about cases where the defendant has admitted guilt, no issue of diminished responsibility and no motive.

It's no different to a doctor treating a patient for a disease when he thinks the patient might be contributing to the disease by not eating properly or whatever. They are there to provide a service and that's what they do. Their refusal to judge their clients will stand you in good stead if you ever find yourself arrested for something you didn't do.

And comparing lawyers to cleaners etc is just silly. Yes there are people who earn less - but being a lawyer is a) challenging - including emotionally and requires some very anti-social hours turning up to police stations at 3am b) requires a lot of education and training and c) comes along with some significant legal and regulatory obligations. None of which applies to cleaning. They are both hard work but then so are most jobs these days.

I don't know any profession that would be ok with an 18% pay cut in two years Tryharder

You are just delightful aren't you dear?

If the defendant has admitted guilt, there is no issue of diminished responsibility and no motive then what types of things do you think a Defence lawyer will present to the court to 'wrangle a lenient sentence'?

Defence lawyers don't just make up random stuff to get their clients a more lenient sentence.

i don't know impatient, that's part of what I was trying to find out...

Two questions for Tryharder, if I may:

1. On what grounds was that evidence found to be inadmissable? If, for example, it was discovered as a result of an illegal police search then it is both right and proper that the evidence was not presented to jurors.

1. Given that the evidence was not in the public domain, what right do you have to raise it here?

"LOL at the posts from defence lawyers bemoaning their lot and how
poor they are since legal aid changed etc

Go and get a cleaning job then or work in a shop "

Why would someone who has put a huge amount of effort and money into gaining the qualifications required to enable them to practise as a criminal lawyer then decide to get a cleaning job? Not sure how that really follows?

My dad was a criminal defence attorney (USA). He slept well at night and still does. Absolutely fascinating guy to talk to about the logic and beauty of the law.

You can't play the game if you don't believe in the process.

DD recently had in history class an assignment to do with imagining what it was like in England before no formalised justice system. It was crazy. Punishment depended on who you were & who you were accused of hurting, not the severity of the crime or whether you really did it.

Lol at all the defence lawyers bemoaning their lot and how poor they are since legal aid changes etc . Really? Because the ones I know 'moan' about the fact they are now restricted to who they can represent.

I think the key point is that lawyers are (or should be) steeped in an understanding of just how important due legal process is, it really is a cornerstone of a civilised society. Any distaste they might experience as a result of the circumstances of one individual case should be hugely outweighed by the knowledge that in doing their job to the best of their ability they are making life better for a whole society (and since other countries have taken inspiration from our justice system, their efforts have ramifications that spread outside our borders).

I think a good, honest hardworking criminal lawyer has a lot to feel justifiably proud of (and no, I'm not one - a criminal lawyer that is!).

this point must have been made elsewhere... and I don't know how it works exactly in UK admittedly. But I imagine this is the same: most defendants are not obvious total creeps. And relatively few lawyers only work with the most severely awful crime accusations. Most CD lawyers have mostly clients who are accused of merely mildly horrible stuff, like theft, vandalism, non-sexual assault, etc.

I guess it's human nature to be ultra-unforgiving at the slightest accusation, but the premises of the legal process are to rise above that.