It isn't gut-wrenching? Seriously?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).
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.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.
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.
Totally agree.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.
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.
Yeah I will.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.
Yeah, I do agree.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 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.
You think the Turpin's were being controlled by a Mansonesque puppet leader?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?
I do understand everything everyone has said on the subject. I do get it all. Still makes me feel uneasy though.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.
Not really, no.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.
It is in part for sure.But your opinion is subjective.
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.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.
And that's the way it should be.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
15 though but yepStolen car, innocent people could have been mown down at 85 mph - not a lot of sympathy from me to be honest.
How does it compare to say one of those lorry drivers who through a moments negligence can end up banged up.15 though but yep
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?