AIBU to think defendents should not have right to remain silent in court?

[Curly3456]

I have just finished watching "Killed by a rich kid" (documentary on Channel 4).
One of the boys accused of killing Yousef chose not to be questioned in court.

The two boys charged with Yousef's murder were found not guilty. Yousef's family were left feeling justice had not been done.

I can't help feeling that people accused of a crime shouldn't be able to opt out of being questioned in court?

@Nicholethejewellery

Generally it's best to speak if you're innocent and keep quiet if you're guilty.

If innocent most people would answer questions fully to to demonstrate that they did not commit the crime.

If guilty it's better to keep quiet in case they try to trip you up.

The problem with the legal system is that lawyers are not trying to get justice, they're trying to get the result they're being paid to get. It's unfair to put a trained lawyer up against a normal civilian and twist their words. I think that the legal team that loses should be punished in some way too, especially in particularly bad cases where the accused is clearly guilty. The threat of being imprisoned might persuade many lawyers to avoid certain cases altogether.

Oh dear. You really really don’t understand how the legal system - and the right of everyone accused to have proper representation works, do you?

The problem with the legal system is that lawyers are not trying to get justice, they're trying to get the result they're being paid to get. It's unfair to put a trained lawyer up against a normal civilian and twist their words. I think that the legal team that loses should be punished in some way too, especially in particularly bad cases where the accused is clearly guilty. The threat of being imprisoned might persuade many lawyers to avoid certain cases altogether.

So people who are perceived - pre-trial - to be guilty don't deserve legal representation? Perceived by whom? You? Me? The police? John four doors down?

JFC. What is wrong with some people?! Our criminal justice system, thankfully, is not based on only the likeable being allowed qualified legal representation. Fucking hell.

The problem with the legal system is that lawyers are not trying to get justice

You presume the legal system has any interest in justice.

@Nicholethejewellery

Generally it's best to speak if you're innocent and keep quiet if you're guilty.

If innocent most people would answer questions fully to to demonstrate that they did not commit the crime.

If guilty it's better to keep quiet in case they try to trip you up.

The problem with the legal system is that lawyers are not trying to get justice, they're trying to get the result they're being paid to get. It's unfair to put a trained lawyer up against a normal civilian and twist their words. I think that the legal team that loses should be punished in some way too, especially in particularly bad cases where the accused is clearly guilty. The threat of being imprisoned might persuade many lawyers to avoid certain cases altogether.

The team that loses? So the prosecutors too? Can you even imagine what that would mean for number of cases brought to court? Especially for crimes like rape where prosecution is minimal anyways?

And if it's just about the defence team, basically what you are saying is that we should pick and choose who is entitled to a defence, based on a presumption of guilt.

@Nicholethejewellery

Generally it's best to speak if you're innocent and keep quiet if you're guilty.

If innocent most people would answer questions fully to to demonstrate that they did not commit the crime.

If guilty it's better to keep quiet in case they try to trip you up.

The problem with the legal system is that lawyers are not trying to get justice, they're trying to get the result they're being paid to get. It's unfair to put a trained lawyer up against a normal civilian and twist their words. I think that the legal team that loses should be punished in some way too, especially in particularly bad cases where the accused is clearly guilty. The threat of being imprisoned might persuade many lawyers to avoid certain cases altogether.

Fucking mental 😂😂😂😂😂

Like something from black mirror

@daimbarsatemydogsbone
It's an interesting philosophical question. What you're saying is people can't be trusted because there's a danger they won't listen to experts.

Read the post from @Nicholethejewellery. I rest my case!

There are some posters on here that should never be allowed on a jury.

@PurpleCarpets

@daimbarsatemydogsbone
It's an interesting philosophical question. What you're saying is people can't be trusted because there's a danger they won't listen to experts.

Read the post from**@Nicholethejewellery**. I rest my case!

Congratulations!
Get out of jail cards free cards are on a 2 for 1 today.👍

Nicholethejewellery

I understand what you are saying.

I agree it is win/lose game for the prosecution/defence lawyers. They are getting paid to win the case for their side. Some will stop at nothing to get the result their client wants.

Even in cases where the evidence against defendant is damning (i.e. the evidence clearly proves they have committed the crime), some defence lawyers will do everything they can to minimise the crime for their client. If this involves twisting the facts - if they have to exaggerate or paint the victim in a bad light, they will do so.

It’s still a game, just a different one - yes, their client is clearly guilty but their aim becomes a different one: to get a light sentence.

Everyone has the right to be defended. There is no question about that but what tactics are lawyers using to get the result they want?
In this tragic case, Yousef’s character was destroyed by the defence team. Joshua Molnar’s family had the money to hire a top lawyer, PR team and bodyguards for their son who did the job for their client.
Yousef’s family were not able to match this level for the prosecution side.

Nor indeed out of the house without someone to help them cross the road and find their way home again

@BrokenNHS

Nicholethejewellery

I understand what you are saying.

I agree it is win/lose game for the prosecution/defence lawyers. They are getting paid to win the case for their side. Some will stop at nothing to get the result their client wants.

Even in cases where the evidence against defendant is damning (i.e. the evidence clearly proves they have committed the crime), some defence lawyers will do everything they can to minimise the crime for their client. If this involves twisting the facts - if they have to exaggerate or paint the victim in a bad light, they will do so.

It’s still a game, just a different one - yes, their client is clearly guilty but their aim becomes a different one: to get a light sentence.

Everyone has the right to be defended. There is no question about that but what tactics are lawyers using to get the result they want?
In this tragic case, Yousef’s character was destroyed by the defence team. Joshua Molnar’s family had the money to hire a top lawyer, PR team and bodyguards for their son who did the job for their client.
Yousef’s family were not able to match this level for the prosecution side.

What do you mean by your last sentence? The prosecution team is appointed by the CPS and nothing to do with the victims family.

The rest of your post just describes the justice system - you can focus on the defence teams actions in this instance but the onus is, as always, for the prosecution to present enough evidence for the jury to have no doubt in their minds about guilt, and in other cases to mitigate the guilt.

No system is perfect because there are humans involved, but as distasteful as it might be to some, especially those outside the legal system, being adversarial, win at all costs, is one of the aspects that allows for a defendant to receive quality representation. It helps minimize biases on the defense side, in fact, ineffective assistance of counsel is grounds for appeal of a conviction.

Always better to have an overzealous defense attorney trying to get a guilty person off, than an uninterested defense attorney who does not like the defendant just phoning it in.

What do you mean by your last sentence? The prosecution team is appointed by the CPS and nothing to do with the victims family.

His family are on the side of the prosecution. Do you think that they were able to pay for the ‘best’ lawyers in the land to stop their son’s character from being destroyed by the prosecution? No, the only thing they could do was rely on the CPS to prosecute the defendants. They had no voice.

Take 2:

His family are on the side of the prosecution. Do you think that they were able to pay for the ‘best’ lawyers in the land to stop their son’s character from being destroyed by the DEFENCE? No, the only thing they could do was rely on the CPS to prosecute the defendants. They had no voice.

Always better to have an overzealous defense attorney trying to get a guilty person off, than an uninterested defense attorney who does not like the defendant just phoning it in.

There is no doubt - defendants need defending.

However, the fact that some people have the means to hire top lawyers and others don’t make the whole system unfair.

Op, some people giggle/laugh/smile when under stress.

It would be reported as 'when asked if they killed him, the defendant laughed'

In the USA they can plead the fifth amendment, which is the right not to incriminate oneself.

In the UK, they can remain silent, but as pp have said, an 'adverse inference ' can be taken from silence.

@BrokenNHS

Take 2:

His family are on the side of the prosecution. Do you think that they were able to pay for the ‘best’ lawyers in the land to stop their son’s character from being destroyed by the DEFENCE? No, the only thing they could do was rely on the CPS to prosecute the defendants. They had no voice.

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make here, of course the family of Yousef can't pay for lawyers for the simple reason the State prosecutes crimes, are you suggesting that individuals should be able to fund criminal prosecutions? Where the hell do you think that would lead?

The State/Prosecution is the voice of the family.

I think that the legal team that loses should be punished in some way too, especially in particularly bad cases where the accused is clearly guilty.

There are people who believe that if a rape victim fails to gain a guilty verdict she should be prosecuted for making a false allegation. These kinds of attitude have nothing to do with justice, and I agree with the poster that said some people shouldn't be on a jury. They're probably part of the reason we have 12 jurors.

@BrokenNHS

Always better to have an overzealous defense attorney trying to get a guilty person off, than an uninterested defense attorney who does not like the defendant just phoning it in.

There is no doubt - defendants need defending.

However, the fact that some people have the means to hire top lawyers and others don’t make the whole system unfair.

True which is what makes some of the suggestions on these threads even more bonkers and make it even more unfair.

I think that the legal team that loses should be punished in some way too, especially in particularly bad cases where the accused is clearly guilty

How do you know the accused is clearly guilty? What special powers do you have that escapes the Prosecution when they couldn't manage to convince 12 random members of the public on the Jury of this obvious guilt?

@BrokenNHS

Take 2:

His family are on the side of the prosecution. Do you think that they were able to pay for the ‘best’ lawyers in the land to stop their son’s character from being destroyed by the DEFENCE? No, the only thing they could do was rely on the CPS to prosecute the defendants. They had no voice.

Absolutely I think most understand the legal system and why it operates as it does. That doesn’t mean that certain cases should not cause concern. Miscarriages of justice happen. It’s really not ok to glibly brush away what happened to this boy and later to his family as they had to listen to the portrayal of their son, the victim, in court. The silence did speak volumes. Events involving the defendent since speak volumes. The fact that his first response was to try and blame randoms from Hume and Moss Side speak volumes. When that failed, they painted a scholarship boy as an inner city thug. The suggestion of the Op clearly is not ok, but her outrage is understandable. It would be good to see a little more outrage about this case.

@BronwenFrideswide

I think that the legal team that loses should be punished in some way too, especially in particularly bad cases where the accused is clearly guilty

How do you know the accused is clearly guilty? What special powers do you have that escapes the Prosecution when they couldn't manage to convince 12 random members of the public on the Jury of this obvious guilt?

Are you familiar with the case?

I was shocked they couldn't have good character witnesses in court.

That teenager will kill again.

@BrokenNHS Even in cases where the evidence against defendant is damning (i.e. the evidence clearly proves they have committed the crime), some defence lawyers will do everything they can to minimise the crime for their client. If this involves twisting the facts - if they have to exaggerate or paint the victim in a bad light, they will do so.

It’s still a game, just a different one - yes, their client is clearly guilty but their aim becomes a different one: to get a light sentence.

Their aim is not to get their client a light sentence. That's a perverted but sadly common view of what defence barristers do.

Their job is to make sure that any conviction passed is sound and the sentence appropriate. To do this you need to test the prosecution in every way possible.

The onus of proof is always on the prosecution (usually the Crown / State). The defence must make sure the Crown / State's case is watertight and that the sentence is in line with the severity of the crime.

A poor defence which does NOT do this risks the defendant being able to successfully bring appeals in future.

Better to have a rock-solid case which stands up to every single ounce of scrutiny the defence team can muster than a lazy defence barrister who doesn't bother to test the prosecution properly.