How do lawyers do it???

Ninja_scrotum

How can lawyers defend murderers and rapists, even when they know for sure that the accused has committed the crime?
<snip - herr K>

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

*sigh*

Silverfish

Money.

jesus_thats_gre

Ninja_scrotum wrote: »

How can lawyers defend murderers and rapists, even when they know for sure that the accused has committed the crime?

<Snipped Herr-K>

What about doctors helping the same people when they are sick?

Ninja_scrotum

Oi! Whats the *sigh* for?

Yes I know they make money, that's great.

Anyways, i was trying to make a point but some moderator did a drive-by on my post. Now it's pretty meaningless.

Ok by bye.

Karoma

Ninja_scrotum wrote: »

Oi! Whats the *sigh* for?

Yes I know they make money, that's great.

Anyways, i was trying to make a point but some moderator did a drive-by on my post. Now it's pretty meaningless.

Ok by bye.

No; it's really not. It's fine without your example. The case you cited is an on-going case? As such: It's unethical (and illegal?) to imply guilt.

Pigman II

A classic film from the 1980's called "From the Hip" explains all! It's a well observed drama starring Judd "Bender" Nelson a hot-shot lawyer who defends evil (although you're not supposed to know that at the start - woops I've said too much) murderer (damn I've done it again!) John Hurt.

Imdb only gives it 5.7 but don't be put off by that score. It's at least a 5.9 imho.

biko

Ask OJ's or Michael Jacksons lawyers.

Jesus Wept

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt0T23gQMU0

biko wrote: »

Ask OJ's or Michael Jacksons lawyers.

Johnie Cochran died, would be hard to ask him, though with your recent paranormal activity, perhaps not impossible?

gerTheGreat

I believe that they have an obligation to defend their client to the last. The whole point is to give EVERYONE a fair trial.

MysticalSoul

If the guilty party doesn't tell the truth (and Solicitors are bound to disclose all information that is in their knowledge), it is hearsay. If the Solicitor suspects, but the person has not said anything indicating that they did in fact commit such and such a crime, they are duty bound to their client.

pretty-in-pink

Afaik, they don't ask questions re: guilt, as if admitted they must disclose it. So they defend people with a story. They are spin doctors really, and everyone is entitled to a fair trial- plus innocent till proven guilty. It might be about money for some of them, but its a job that needs doing. It mightn't seem fair to you, but what if someone is unfairly accused? What about the extenuating circumstances in each case? They do an important job, and while some are sleazy,most aren't. This can be said about every job. Its the people, not the profession that makes someone/something bad.

cooperguy

Everybody is entitled to a defense so as to ensure the real story comes out. It has turned out before that people who looked as guilty as sin turned out to be innocent. As long as the lawyer does everything above board then if he's guilty he will still be convicted and the appropriate sentence will be given.

The only problem I have with lawyers like that is when they get people off on a technicallity when they are obviously guilty.

mikemac

cooperguy wrote: »

The only problem I have with lawyers like that is when they get people off on a technicallity when they are obviously guilty.

Judge Curtin case was a classic example of this.
And while everyone complains about it, in a way they are doing the gardai/DPP a favour as they showed them their error and hopefully it won't happen again.

AARRRGH

Yeah, let's assume everyone who has been arrested for rape and murder is guilty...

TheVan

Is the OP serious or just trying to be a smart-arse?


Everyone has the right to a fair trial in front of a judge/jury of their peers. It is not the place of the solicitor to determine guilt, its the place of said jury. Otherwise you have a system where only the blatantly innocent would be represented.

And even if the solicitor thinks they are guilty, again its not his call. For example, what if the defence team for the Birmingham Six had looked at the police evidence and decided they couldn't morally represent these people?

Ninja_scrotum

Hey it's nothing more than a rant really. It's like saying "how can fat bastards keep on stuffing their mouths like that while there's kids dying in Africa".

If the evidence against the criminal is overwhelming - like O.J.'s case, in a lawyers position I would just find it hard to care if he gets a fair jail term or not.

AARRRGH

Ninja_scrotum wrote: »

If the evidence against the criminal is overwhelming - like O.J.'s case, in a lawyers position I would just find it hard to care if he gets a fair jail term or not.

Don't become a laywer so

Thirdfox

Lol - yes, money that's why we do it... well still a law student so maybe my idealist view of the world will change once I'm trying to earn above minimum wage as a trainee barrister...could take up to 10 years.

Personally I was shocked that the person in the A case (rape of underage child) was released and re-jailed. Our constitution took a battering there I think. Lawyers/judges are supposed to look at the law and apply it fairly to all (doesn't matter if you're a rapist, murderer or politician - interesting titbit; rapists and politicians are often given special protection in jail as they are regarded as the lowest of the low by even the criminals themselves).

One particular case may seem like a very bad decision i.e. Curtain case or A case (A was rejailed though - public pressure overwhelming senses of judges in my opinion). But looking at the whole picture our legal system is based on the fact that it is better to let a few bad apples get off than to imprison one innocent person. Of course the law is constantly evolving to try and close off loopholes but within reason. This is why we have such principles like right to silence and right to legal representation.

Finally imagine how bad it would look if a lawyer appointed to defend someone refused? The jury would not give a fair trial at all to the accused.

And of course lawyers, being human, are fallible - they are tempted by greed and corruption just like any of us.

If for instance I knew my client was guilty of say murder - I would be obliged to put his/her best case forward - I trust the prosecution to do the same. I could not lie and say he did not commit murder but could provide mitigating factors (I would also be challenging the evidence of the prosecution to make sure the evidence is up to standard). It is up to the jury to decide on the evidence presented the facts of the case, and the judge to decide the sentence. We're all just cogs of the great big legal system.

Finally as a law student - I do not have first hand experience of working as a criminal defence barrister so what we learn in lectures could be quite different to the real world (and sadly it often is).

An Citeog

Ninja_scrotum wrote: »

If the evidence against the criminal is overwhelming - like O.J.'s case, in a lawyers position I would just find it hard to care if he gets a fair jail term or not.

According to the Bar Council of Ireland's code of conduct,

Section 10.11 wrote:

So long as an accused maintains his or her innocence a barrister’s duty lies in advising the accused on the law appropriate to his or her case and the conduct thereof. Barristers shall not put pressure on the accused to tender a plea of guilty whether to a restricted charge or not, so long as the accused maintains their innocence. Barristers should always consider very carefully whether it is proper, in the interests of justice, to accept instructions to enter a plea of guilty. They should ensure that the accused is fully aware of all of the consequences of such a plea and they should insist that the instructions to plead guilty are recorded by their instructing solicitor in writing and in their presence. Where the accused is pleading guilty barristers should not accept instructions to tender a plea in mitigation on a basis inconsistent with the plea of guilty.

Outer Bongolia

Admission of guilt by client
In criminal matters it is a matter for the jury or the court, not for the advocate for the defence, to decide the guilt or innocence of his client. It is the duty of the solicitor for the defence to put the prosecution to proof of what it alleges and the solicitor may submit to the court that there is insufficient evidence adduced to justify a conviction. Where, prior to the commencement or during the course of any criminal case, a client admits to his solicitor that he is guilty of the charge, it is well settled that the solicitor need only decline to act in such proceedings if the client is insistent on giving evidence to deny such guilt or requires the making of a statement asserting his innocence. Where the client has admitted his guilt to his solicitor but will not be giving evidence, his solicitor may continue to act for him. The solicitor for the defence may also advance any other defence which obliges the prosecution to prove guilt other than protesting the client‘s innocence

More than likely, the lawyer will steer well clear of drawing out an admission from his client. He will just find out how you intend to plead and then build a case; perhaps advising a different plea if he thinks necessary.

If I was charged with murder and I started to tell my barrister that I had indeed done it, I wouldn't be surprised if he put his hands over his ears and said "na na na I'm not listening"

I have been through the whole legal thing but I don't think I could go on to be a solicitor. Not because I am concerned about ethics or morals, it's just that years of study and exams have left me feeling as if my brain has been rotating in a microwave for a decade. I look forward to a nice simple office job

Sleepy

While I understand the necessity for lawyers in our legal system, I personally couldn't do the job. I think a certain level of amorality is required to be able to deal with the possibility of helping guilty people walk free. Not the nicest way to earn a living imho.

Black Swan

"How do lawyers do it?" By dropping their briefs?

Jigsaw

Everyone is entitled to a representation in court regardless of guilt. A person may have killed someone but perhaps the rightful outcome is that they are convicted of manslaughter rather than murder in light of some mitigating circumstances. Some people can be set up really badly leading to a miscarriage of justice and they deserve representation. Otherwise are we to allow the tabloid press to become judge, jury and executioner?

An Citeog

Stereonick wrote: »

More than likely, the lawyer will steer well clear of drawing out an admission from his client. He will just find out how you intend to plead and then build a case; perhaps advising a different plea if he thinks necessary.

If I was charged with murder and I started to tell my barrister that I had indeed done it, I wouldn't be surprised if he put his hands over his ears and said "na na na I'm not listening"

I have been through the whole legal thing but I don't think I could go on to be a solicitor. Not because I am concerned about ethics or morals, it's just that years of study and exams have left me feeling as if my brain has been rotating in a microwave for a decade. I look forward to a nice simple office job

The solicitor and barrister are completely separate. I'm not sure exactly what the op is referring to but I'm assuming he's on about the whole Hollywood style American courtroom where the lawyer becomes almost possessed and starts ranting and bullying the witnesses. It doesn't actually work like that, well not in Ireland anyway!

This line applies to the role of the barrister,

In criminal matters it is a matter for the jury or the court, not for the advocate for the defence, to decide the guilt or innocence of his client.

I don't see the issue with the line you bolded either.

Robbo

Jigsaw wrote: »

Otherwise are we to allow the tabloid press to become judge, jury and executioner?

Given that this is AH, yes.

On a related note, Bring Back Birching.

Outer Bongolia

An Citeog wrote: »

The solicitor and barrister are completely separate. I'm not sure exactly what the op is referring to but I'm assuming he's on about the whole Hollywood style American courtroom where the lawyer becomes almost possessed and starts ranting and bullying the witnesses. It doesn't actually work like that, well not in Ireland anyway!

This line applies to the role of the barrister,



I don't see the issue with the line you bolded either.

Well my good man, I know they are separate, I did law you know And this is not from an American document, rather an Irish publication about duties of solicitors and barristers. That is exactly how it works over here, if you receive an admission of guilt, you are not to defend that person if they maintain that they will plead innocent.

That line means that it is not the barrister's concern whether his client is guilty or not. He is concerned with arguing his case by however he pleads.

Anyway, the bold type stresses that if a client admits guilt to his barrister and then still persists in pleading innocent, the barrister should refuse to represent him.

Wossack

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"How do lawyers do it?" By dropping their briefs?

I misread that as 'by dropping their beliefs', weird

An Citeog

Stereonick wrote: »

Well my good man, I know they are separate, I did law you know And this is not from an American document, rather an Irish publication about duties of solicitors and barristers. That is exactly how it works over here, if you receive an admission of guilt, you are not to defend that person if they maintain that they will plead innocent.

That line means that it is not the barrister's concern whether his client is guilty or not. He is concerned with arguing his case by however he pleads.

Anyway, the bold type stresses that if a client admits guilt to his barrister and then still persists in pleading innocent, the barrister should refuse to represent him.

I know I quoted you but I was referring more to other posts in this thread where terms like lawyer, solicitor and barrister were being used interchangeably.

I agree with the whole admission of guilt thing aswell, sure I even posted about it before you!

Outer Bongolia

K Sorry :cool:

2rs

Is there not something in the code of conduct of a barrister which prevents them from refusing a case without good reason?

The fact that the client is perceived to be guilty of murder or other nastiness is not a good enough reason for a barrister to turn down a brief afaik.

Saint Bob

Cause they get paid either way?

Outer Bongolia

2rs wrote: »

Is there not something in the code of conduct of a barrister which prevents them from refusing a case without good reason?

The fact that the client is perceived to be guilty of murder or other nastiness is not a good enough reason for a barrister to turn down a brief afaik.

certainly not, if they are perceived to be guilty. But if a guy accused of murder argues his innocence with all his might and then in private confides to the barrister "i killed her" then he is not supposed to agree to argue his innocence further

2rs

Stereonick wrote: »

certainly not, if they are perceived to be guilty. But if a guy accused of murder argues his innocence with all his might and then in private confides to the barrister "i killed her" then he is not supposed to agree to argue his innocence further

let me put it another way. If a solicitor comes to a barrister with a brief to defend an accused child rapist or murderer, can the barrister turn the brief down?

I think this wouold then answer the OP's question as to how lawyers can do it. The answer would thus be that they have to???

Muff_Daddy

Silverfish wrote: »

Money.

^^^^^^^^^^^

You can analyse and analyse the OP's question, but at the end of the day it all comes doen to 'the almighty (insert currency)'

Outer Bongolia

Well of course he can turn it down, but why would he? I'm just saying that if the client is pleading innocent and then tells the barrister that he is guilty and that he wants to plead innocent then the barrister should strongly advise him to change his plea. Strictly speaking, a barrister cannot go ahead and argue his innocence once he has received an admission of guilt. However in reality, from talking to a relative, most barristers keep the issue of whether or not their client actually did it as far from their minds. They just listen to what the client wants to claim in court and then help them build a defense with the evidence.

Awful Scut Mk2

An Citeog wrote: »

The solicitor and barrister are completely separate. I'm not sure exactly what the op is referring to but I'm assuming he's on about the whole Hollywood style American courtroom where the lawyer becomes almost possessed and starts ranting and bullying the witnesses. It doesn't actually work like that, well not in Ireland anyway!

Christ, no. I've had to sit through a couple of murder trials as an observer and the sheer tedium of the tactics adopted by some of the highest paid barristers in the land would have forced me as a juror to acquit the accused so that I could get out of there.

It basically goes like this -

Bewigged twat: "I put it to you that you are lying."
Witness: "No".
Bewigged twat: "I put it to you that you were never there that night".
Witness: "I was there."
Bewigged twat: "I put it to you that you have fabricated your entire testimony."
Witness: *snores gently and drools onto chest*

lynnlegend

even if the person is clearly guilty like the macanns they still have a right to be tried to prove there guilt or lack there of ......and some one will always shovel sh*t if the price is right

Ninja_scrotum

An Citeog wrote: »

I'm not sure exactly what the op is referring to but I'm assuming he's on about the whole Hollywood style American courtroom where the lawyer becomes almost possessed and starts ranting and bullying the witnesses.

Where does my original post imply possessed hollywood lawyers?

Anyways, I was referring to a particular case in the opening post. Said post was subsequently raped, and is now just a general statement/rant/question. It picked up a bit of steam though, I'm liking it.