I would find it hard to motivate myself to put much energy in defending such an asshole. Would probably go with whatever he tells me to do, too. (As he is so obviously guilty, I wonder whether the defence team lack any sense of ethics, or whether they shower two hours each evening and will have to get therapy for their feelings of guilt when it is all over.) I would find it hard to motivate myself to put much energy in defending such an asshole. Would probably go with whatever he tells me to do, too. (As he is so obviously guilty, I wonder whether the defence team lack any sense of ethics, or whether they shower two hours each evening and will have to get therapy for their feelings of guilt when it is all over.)
I wonder how many people said similar about The Birmingham Six or Stefan Kiszko?
An accused in the UK is entitled to a trial and the Crown has to prove its case. The defence team are there to put the accused's version no matter how implausible. They will advise an accused to plead guilty where it seems likely to them that continuing to maintain a not guilty plea is likely to result in a higher sentence.
Your response to this will probably be but the Birmingham 6 and poor Stefan Kiszko
were different.
You cannot glibly say , why motivate yourself to take his case?
Where do you draw the line on accused who deserve to get legal representation and those who don't?