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.

And wrt vamp
It was an old thread, not hers, that asked how do you sleep at night?

From what I can tell vamp asked a genuine q about a ethical / moral issue.

And has appeared to reached a position (and apologies if I've misinterpreted you) that she can't understand how barristers do it and that it's not something she could do but accepts the near unanimous explanations from others on the thread that defence lawyers do not struggle with this facet of their job in a moral sense.

That's a perfectly reasonable and polite way to debate the issue. We may disagree and I may think she's completely wrong etc. but it's been conducted in a civilised way

I imagine the people poking fun at CD solicitors complaining about cuts to legal aid and pay would change their tune mighty fast if they ever found themselves accused of something and without the funds to pay for their own representation.

Very much so HopaLong. There's a lot of things one of my Solicitor Friends (Welfare) now can't do without telling someone there's a Fee. He's been known to work through his lunch hour simply to write submissions for those that can't afford the Fees in the hope that it would help them somewhat when they go in unrepresented.

mayor i'm glad i'm not coming across as someone who is insulting defence lawyers or the job they have to do. I don't even know if I could cope with jury service in a particularly serious case. Hopefully, I'll never have to!

One day it could be you. Or one of your DCs. And who will you want on your side then?

One of my favorite quotations in this regard is contained in this excerpt from Robert Bolt's play A Man for All Seasons about Sir Thomas More:

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coastman's laws, not God's and if you cut them downand you're just the man to do itdo you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

Scone I'm guessing only a handful will 'get' that. I do :)

here is an interesting interview with Geir Lippestad, the lawyer who defended the Norwegian mass killer

www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/26/us-norway-lawyer-idUSBRE82P10H20120326

I suppose not all defence lawyers find it easy on the conscience then. Interesting link!

There are some great posts on this thread. I think the key point is that it is not for the defence lawyer to be judge and jury - that is for the... judge and jury! If you refused to defend someone who you thought was guilty then you might as well dispense with the whole justice system and just ask the lawyer "do you think he/she did it?". It would save a lot of time and money, but I am not sure I would want to live in a society like that.

vampyre in the recent case of Ian Watkins, I am damn sure that he only finally pleaded guilty due to his defence barristers and thank God they did convince him to and thereby save the jurors the horror of viewing the evidence. No doubt he thought his guilty plea would mean a lesser sentence and much to his surprise that was (rightfully) not the case. His defence barrister had very little to base mitigation on during the sentencing process but would have failed in their duty to have not tried to give some reason for him comitting his crimes. I read the full transcript of the Judge's reasons for imposing the sentence, and it was horrific reading, I didn't realise it would be quite so detailed, and the defence barristers did not spout spurious physcobabble excuses in order to achieve a lenient sentence for their clients. They all behaved with the utmost professionalism and I think they did, and do, a very hard job under extremely difficult circumstances. I am also pretty sure that that particular case will have had an effect on everyone involved in it.

it must have been a hideous experience for everyone involved, would he have been able to choose his lawyer or do they get 'assigned' one?

To the poster who made the glib comment about criminal defence barristers going and working as cleaners instead of moaning about having their legal aid rates cut, are you also aware that prosecution barristers rates are also being cut? So members of the legal profession are not going to want to do any criminal legal work either as prosecution or defence and that may well lead to less criminal prosecutions - happy with that?

vampyre I don't know if he was able to choose his lawyer one of the legal people on this thread would be able to answer that for you.

Interesting that this thread is up at the same time as one about a group of policement fabricating a confession- and getting filmed doing so.

Unless these matters are actually out there in the open, with someone prepared to ask awkward questions on both sides- how can we ever know what has happened?

No.

It is a necessary part of the legal process for evidence to be presented on both sides. You are not defending the morality of the person but presenting evidence.

And score, that is an excellent quote!

And how would you feel if you were accused of a crime and no one was available to run your defence?

floppity wouldn't it depend on whether I had committed the crime or not and what my motive was? I repeat though, defence lawyers are obviously crucial in a trial. I imagine I would feel very let down and possibly completely hopeless if no defence was available to me.

just trying to find what I think was the closing argument from Danilo Restivo's defence lawyer. IIRC even he thought his client was stupid didn't come across well.