Defence lawyers/barristers defending clients they know to be guilty (2 Viewers)

[Otis]

I can assure you it isn’t.

It isn't gut-wrenching? Seriously?

I am obviously talking about someone who has already been previously convicted of the same charge they are accused of in this instance, so obviously a convicted child killer, not someone you are defending who has been accused of child killing, but someone who has been previously convicted and this is a new charge (same charge).

 

---

[Grendel]

It isn't gut-wrenching? Seriously?

I am obviously talking about someone who has already been previously convicted of the same charge they are accused of in this instance, so obviously a convicted child killer, not someone you are defending who has been accused of child killing, but someone who has been previously convicted and this is a new charge (same charge).

The judicial process correctly determines if past crimes can be raised. In the case of Ian Huntley it was decided they were not and smit meant a majority verdict. His barrister would have deemed it a success to not allow previous crimes to be revealed.

 

[Otis]

The judicial process correctly determines if past crimes can be raised. In the case of Ian Huntley it was decided they were not and smit meant a majority verdict. His barrister would have deemed it a success to not allow previous crimes to be revealed.

Yes, I know. I do know a bit about the law. If you have 4 years experience you obviously have much more in-depth knowledge than me.

Of course it is in a defence barrister's interest to not have previous crimes brought up in the current trial, so as to not influence the jury and have them believe the defendant must be guilty because of previous offences.

 

[Gazolba]

Just always wondered how they can defend a client in court that they know is guilty.

<snip>

It would be totally against everything I stand for to try and get a verdict of not guilty for a client I believe to be guilty.

It's the defence lawyers job to make the prosecution prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Being found 'not guilty' is not finding them innocent.
So yes, it sounds bad in theory but it's what makes the whole system work.
As a lawyer you would have to separate your beliefs on the guilt of your client from your ability to mount a defence. So this would definitely not be a career for you.

 

[Otis]

It's the defence lawyers job to make the prosecution prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Being found 'not guilty' is not finding them innocent.
So yes, it sounds bad in theory but it's what makes the whole system work.
As a lawyer you would have to separate your beliefs on the guilt of your client from your ability to mount a defence. So this would definitely not be a career for you.

Totally agree.

 

[duffer]

Yep get all that. Still seems like a bit of cop out that though. Pass on a sense of moral internal duty and wash your hands of it all.

I could walk down the street, watch an old lady being mugged and just walk past saying 'Not my job, it's down to the police.'

I get all he is saying and what I am is saying is that maybe we need to think about changing the law.

I always thought I would love to be a lawyer, but could never, ever defend someone I believed to be guilty. If I got them a verdict of not guilty and then the defendant perpetrated the same crime again I would never ever forgive myself.

There is also the situation of getting someone a lesser sentence, therefore doing your job properly and then the defendant carrying out the same crime again upon their release.

For me, I would have to have belief in the client in order to defend him or her.

You also have to remember that someone representing a client will often tell them to answer no comment to every question and from the police's perspective that is most frustrating for them and does nothing to aid the investigation whatsoever.

I can see what you're saying mate, but that's how the legal system is designed. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - it's not for the defender to make that judgement and it is his (or her) ethical duty to provide the best defence available to his client regardless of his own opinion. I sense that a lot of defence solicitors dislike their clients!

Regardless, the point is to make sure that the law is fair, proportionate, and that no one is denied justice on the whim of an opinion. A no comment interview is a perfectly legitimate response - these days I believe it's brought to the court's attention, and it's down to the court to decide on its significance when compared to the other evidence.

Remember that we're not far from the days when suspects were beaten for their confessions. If the wrong person is convicted (think Birmingham Six) then it's a terrible outcome for both the innocent and the victims, as all are denied justice. I'm sure you'd make a pretty decent solicitor Otis, but I'd perhaps avoid criminal law for now.

 

[Otis]

I can see what you're saying mate, but that's how the legal system is designed. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - it's not for the defender to make that judgement and it is his (or her) ethical duty to provide the best defence available to his client regardless of his own opinion. I sense that a lot of defence solicitors dislike their clients!

Regardless, the point is to make sure that the law is fair, proportionate, and that no one is denied justice on the whim of an opinion. A no comment interview is a perfectly legitimate response - these days I believe it's brought to the court's attention, and it's down to the court to decide on its significance when compared to the other evidence.

Remember that we're not far from the days when suspects were beaten for their confessions. If the wrong person is convicted (think Birmingham Six) then it's a terrible outcome for both the innocent and the victims, as all are denied justice. I'm sure you'd make a pretty decent solicitor Otis, but I'd perhaps avoid criminal law for now.

Yeah I will.

I just wonder what this Turpin defence lawyer thinks when he hears stuff like has come out today.

They have apparently found two healthy dogs at the property, that were seemingly well fed.

So these parents fed their dogs, but not their children.

I hope the couple get their just desserts. I bet we all do.....apart from the defence lawyer of course, who will try and get as lenient a sentence as possible for them.

 

[duffer]

Yeah I will.

I just wonder what this Turpin defence lawyer thinks when he hears stuff like has come out today.

They have apparently found two healthy dogs at the property, that were seemingly well fed.

So these parents fed their dogs, but not their children.

So the papers say mate. They may well be right too, but that can't matter to the defence lawyer - his job is to provide the best defence he can no matter how much he may dislike his client. We don't want to get to a place where public opinion decides guilt, else before you know it paediatricians are getting their houses fire bombed!

 

[Otis]

So the papers say mate. They may well be right too, but that can't matter to the defence lawyer - his job is to provide the best defence he can no matter how much he may dislike his client. We don't want to get to a place where public opinion decides guilt, else before you know it paediatricians are getting their houses fire bombed!

Yeah, I do agree.

Just sounds baffling at the onset that a defence lawyer hears that the clients have been accused of

Beating their children

Shackling and chaining up their children with padlocks

Only allowing them to shower once a year

Denying them health care

Starving them

Making them defecate on the floor

Allowing them to all be underweight, malnourished and pale, while feeding their dogs well ...


And the defence lawyer says, 'yep, I'll take the case!'

 

[clint van damme]

Yeah I will.

I just wonder what this Turpin defence lawyer thinks when he hears stuff like has come out today.

They have apparently found two healthy dogs at the property, that were seemingly well fed.

So these parents fed their dogs, but not their children.

I hope the couple get their just desserts. I bet we all do.....apart from the defence lawyer of course, who will try and get as lenient a sentence as possible for them.

and maybe they will find some mitigating circumstances that will make them try for a more lenient sentence. Maybe that's how one of the parents was raised. Not excusing it but maybe sometimes the defence lawyer finds a back story that at least explains why certain events have happened.
You have to remember, it works the other way. Charles Manson never killed anyone. He wasn't present at the Labianca or Tate murders. It was only by proving his influence over those who carried them out that he was convicted.
On the initial evidence he would have got off.

 

[Otis]

and maybe they will find some mitigating circumstances that will make them try for a more lenient sentence. Maybe that's how one of the parents was raised. Not excusing it but maybe sometimes the defence lawyer finds a back story that at least explains why certain events have happened.
You have to remember, it works the other way. Charles Manson never killed anyone. He wasn't present at the Labianca or Tate murders. It was only by proving his influence over those who carried them out that he was convicted.
On the initial evidence he would have got off.

You think the Turpin's were being controlled by a Mansonesque puppet leader?

 

[clint van damme]

You think the Turpin's were being controlled by a Mansonesque puppet leader?

isn't it obvious!
Maybe not a good example but I just think that there is a process which needs to be gone through and to be effective it can't be selective.

 

[Otis]

isn't it obvious!
Maybe not a good example but I just think that there is a process which needs to be gone through and to be effective it can't be selective.

I do understand everything everyone has said on the subject. I do get it all. Still makes me feel uneasy though.

Think what it must be like for a rape victim, or an attempted murder victim, to sit in court, watch the defendant lie, but then see the defence team as the enemy too, as they try to either get their client acquitted or with a lesser sentence.

Must be so hard for the victims and genuine witnesses in court watch a barrister defend someone they know is guilty.

Of course we can't just jump to assumptions, but it looks incredibly likely that these Turpin parents are guilty of a number of charges already.

Think all the defence lawyer can offer is mitigating circumstances, or diminished responsibility.

 

[Grendel]

I do understand everything everyone has said on the subject. I do get it all. Still makes me feel uneasy though.

Think what it must be like for a rape victim, or an attempted murder victim, to sit in court, watch the defendant lie, but then see the defence team as the enemy too, as they try to either get their client acquitted or with a lesser sentence.

Must be so hard for the victims and genuine witnesses in court watch a barrister defend someone they know is guilty.

Of course we can't just jump to assumptions, but it looks incredibly likely that these Turpin parents are guilty of a number of charges already.

Think all the defence lawyer can offer is mitigating circumstances, or diminished responsibility.

You say we can’t jump to conclusions but that’s the whole thing about this thread isn’t it?

 

[Otis]

You say we can’t jump to conclusions but that’s the whole thing about this thread isn’t it?

Not really, no.

I think in this Turpin case some things are clear cut, others not so. That's what brought it into my mindset.

 

[Grendel]

Not really, no.

I think in this Turpin case some things are clear cut, others not so. That's what brought it into my mindset.

But your opinion is subjective.

 

[Otis]

But your opinion is subjective.

It is in part for sure.

The police say they found the children chained up and shackled. I wouldn't take that entirely as gospel, because police have had a reputation for lying before.

I would believe in a doctor's report that says they were malnourished though. That in itself would be cause for charges.

I think we are right to accept that doctor's report is correct. Tis possible of course that maybe it was reported wrong, but it does very much point to it being accurate. People who encountered the family said they all looked pale and adults were taken as being children.

Never going to the dentist either is another. Again, unless reported wrong, they denied a child dental treatment.

I don't just accept the children were beaten and strangled, because that is word against word, unless medically proven.

Same too as the one shower a year and the taunting with food etc.

It is clear something is very wrong here. That is not an assumption.

Of course there are lots of factors, but if my child was malnourished I would definitely be in the dock. No doubt about it. We even had as parents had a letter from child services to go and see them to explain why our daughter was underweight and that was just down to her being a fussy eater.

If they had found her severely malnourished we would have been charged with child neglect for sure.

 

[wingy]

I will wager that having 13 offspring and the financial situation within that Family played an enourmous part.
Then you get into did one partner control the other.
There will be plenty of grey area as the case unfolds.

 

[wingy]

In all the initial footage there were 4-5 cars on the drive.
Did any of the older kids work, go unoticed.

 

[Otis]

I will wager that having 13 offspring and the financial situation within that Family played an enourmous part.
Then you get into did one partner control the other.
There will be plenty of grey area as the case unfolds.

Totally agree. There is obviously more to the story. The kids were always smiling when out and about, yet two felt the need to try and escape.

The police may have made stuff up, but why would they say they found shackles and chained and padlocked children to their beds? So I tend to believe that may well be true without saying it IS true

Whatever has happened there must have had a profound effect on the children.

I don't want people on here to get me wrong, I have never been a lock them up and throw away the key type person and try not to just jump to conclusions. I bet most people have over here and in the US though would love to 'get their hands' on these parents so they could 'sort them out.'

I don't think like that. Some of the things I have heard are shocking, but it doesn't mean I take them as the gospel truth.

I think the only things that seem they are probably proven at the moment are the malnourishment and the vastly underweight accusations.

 

[Otis]

District attorney's office have said that the 29 year old 'child' weighed in at just 82lbs. That's 5 stone 8.

 

[skybluegod]

Well there are probably only going to be two type of people that represent these type of people:
People who only care about money- no conscience, if the defendant has money then they will do their best to defend them.

OR

Lawyers that are doing it pro-bono, and are basically just stuck with the job, at the end of the day, they have to enter the plea that their client wants, and if they don’t then they will lose their jobs?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Defence lawyers don’t just try and get clients off or reduce their sentence or charge it is about ensuring a fair process and hearing for them

 

[Otis]

Defence lawyers don’t just try and get clients off or reduce their sentence or charge it is about ensuring a fair process and hearing for them

And that's the way it should be.

Fairness and justice have to be the cornerstones.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

It’s not the same but I often get told I shouldn’t represent people at work in a union capacity because they don’t deserve it and it’s like bloomin eck. It’s not about getting them off it’s about ensuring proper process etc

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I feel a lot more secure when / if convictions are made that justice is served, if the guilty party is allowed a proper defence, and still found guilty...

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Yep that’s right

 

[mechaishida]

As someone who has experienced firsthand the cold, devisive and almost sociopathic way that defense solicitors carry themselves, I honestly don't know how these phantoms sleep at night.

A defense solicitor will employ any and every dirty tactic to attain their payday. And I can tell you from experience, they can get away with exploiting an innocent party in a particular case and bluffing their way to vilifying that person.

Justice? Come now, there is often no such concept in this world.

 

[wingy]

Any views on the case from Leeds today re the 4.5 YR sentence handed down to the 15 YR old responsible for the deaths of four others seemingly due to most of the families of the dead not wishing to see him punished.

 

[tommydazzle]

Stolen car, innocent people could have been mown down at 85 mph - not a lot of sympathy from me to be honest.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Stolen car, innocent people could have been mown down at 85 mph - not a lot of sympathy from me to be honest.

15 though but yep

 

[Otis]

Excellent programme I have just watched on the Beeb, well worth a watch and highly recommended.

Follows the trial of a man in the US who methodically plots to kill a woman he is infatuated with and he documents and films the whole thing.

The defence lawyer as a side note, has a speed boat named 'Crime Pays.'

Really good programme though. Fascinating. Is this guy mentally ill or not? That's the question.

Love and Hate Crime - Series 1: 3. Killer with a Camera

 

[Otis]

Meant to add, he actually films the murder itself.

 

[wingy]

15 though but yep

How does it compare to say one of those lorry drivers who through a moments negligence can end up banged up.
Not meaning one of those jerks on the phone or watching dvds?

 

[wingy]

The Ellie Butler case would be an example .
Can't believe the inquest has drawn it's conclusion.
That the agencies didn't fail her.
The overturning of her fathers original conviction ,the judge who sent her home ,the continued stance of the mother mittigating his nature.