"Without the solicitors, the criminals are fúcked"- *alleged* Dublin criminal

desertcircus

RichieC wrote: »

I do think *known* gang members should have their right to a trial denied and a sentence handed out on the spot. They don't have a right to a trial in gangland, a point of the finger and you're dead.

Because we should of course strive to model our justice system on the methods used by career criminals to ensure obedience. Come on.

El Weirdo

RichieC wrote: »

I do think *known* gang members should have their right to a trial denied and a sentence handed out on the spot. They don't have a right to a trial in gangland, a point of the finger and you're dead.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

2) Known by whom ?

This, I have to hear.

Killer Pigeon

RichieC wrote: »

I do think *known* gang members should have their right to a trial denied and a sentence handed out on the spot. They don't have a right to a trial in gangland, a point of the finger and you're dead.

You mightn't like a model where everyone is treated equally in front of the law but that is a cornerstone of any modern democracy. If someone, even someone with previous criminal offenses, is not seen in the eyes of the state and the judiciary as innocent before being proven guilty, then the rights of the individual have been compromised and, in hindsight, expendable. Everyone has a right to a fair and equal trial. Would you like Ireland to become a police state?

RichieC

The dogs on the streets know who the gang leaders are...

RichieC

RichieC wrote: »

The dogs on the streets know who the gang leaders are...

I don't think canine knowledge is admissable as evidence.

Jev/N

LighterGuy wrote: »

I hate solicitors.
Scum. Just utter scum.

Think about it, even if a decent bloke studied to become one. The nature of the job will turn him. Lying and twisting events. Repersenting blatantly guilty people. And I hate all that "ah people are innocent until proven guilty" bollocks out of them. Its just an excuse to justify the nature of repersenting a scumbag.

Solicitors don't just defend criminals, you know?

Killer Pigeon

RichieC wrote: »

The dogs on the streets know who the gang leaders are...

Yeah and those gangs will never be a reason to destroy the general right to a fair trial. It you give in to them, you give in to the whole idea.

MagicSean

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Yeah and those gangs will never be a reason to destroy the general right to a fair trial. It you give in to them, you give in to the whole idea.

That's what the special criminal court is for

El Weirdo

MagicSean wrote: »

That's what the special criminal court is for

The thin end of the wedge.

Originally set up to try terrorist cases, then organised crime... what next? Where do you stop?

RMD

It's not the solicitors who keep the criminals out of jail, they don't make the rulings. The judges and juries are to blame on that count.

Not all solicitors / barristers represent criminals, many don't even practise that area of law. To tar an entire profession due to a certain % is sheer ignorance.

El Weirdo

goat2 wrote: »

all those positions you mention, are hard, nurses work long hours, garda deal with some very hard cases, remember they have to knock of the doors of people who have just lost their son or daughter in an accident, dealing with murder, dealing with late night drunks, the teacher i must say has got a hard job, dealing with children and teenagers is not easy, trying to motivate some to learn must be so hard, when there are others in the same classroom who want to learn and know how important it is to have an education, soldiers peacekeeping, dont know much about soldiers, and i dont know why you mentioned nigerian

ahem

Funkfield

This thread could be retitled "Better call Saul"

thebman

Why aren't criminals liable for fees once convicted? Surely if they are innocent, no fees, if you did the damn crime then your paying the fees we had to incur to give you a fair trial since you didn't just admit guilt.

Then when they get out they can find a job and pay the fees. If they reoffend then it should be viewed as having had no intention to pay the fees and they should be charged accordingly with that on top of the new crime and stack it up.

You'll soon find that if prison works as a deterrent at all that crime would go down TBH. If it doesn't or you object, I can't help but read it as an admission that prison isn't actually working to reform the criminals and we should try to come up with a new system and preferably one that doesn't cost so much.

Seems criminal to me that you aren't entitled to free healthcare to a proper standard in this country yet criminals can commit as many crimes as they like and not actually pay the fees for their day in court when found guilty. They are using the service and wrongly so when found guilty so time to charge them for the service they are using.

LighterGuy

Jev/N wrote: »

Solicitors don't just defend criminals, you know?

Yes I know that, they defend normal, non-criminal people too.

But its all bullshit. Its about the money. Be it about representing someones rights, being in the wrong, being in the right etc etc. Its all about the money.

A Solicitor/barrister/whatever doesnt care if their client is guilty/in the wrong. Its about the wage. Win, lose or draw. They dont give a fuck. Only thing they care about is € sign. So where does morality come into it?

I just dont understand why people dont just admit that solicitors/barristers/etc put money over conscience/morality first? ... Oh and I aint no naive idiot too. But imagine a solicitor handling a case for some junkie scumbag who is just looking to get compensation. Claiming he fell down a hole when he was never near the place?!

But the same people would moan about a plummer charging them 90 euro to fix a tap? ... Calling them a bunch of 'ripping off, dirty, no decency, ****' .... what the difference IMO ... both looking to get paid.

BornToKill

LighterGuy wrote: »

Oh and I aint no naive idiot too.

No?

rusty999

On a different note Can anyone tell me why the Rate Your Solicitor website appears to be taken down ? I always enjoyed reading the comments and ratings given by people on there and if you were unhappy with your solicitor you could tell it as it is so to speak. I heard something about it being sued which I think would be a pity as its peoples democratic right to be able to express their opinions.

Brain Stroking

LighterGuy wrote: »

Yes I know that, they defend normal, non-criminal people too.

But its all bullshit. Its about the money. Be it about representing someones rights, being in the wrong, being in the right etc etc. Its all about the money.

A Solicitor/barrister/whatever doesnt care if their client is guilty/in the wrong. Its about the wage. Win, lose or draw. They dont give a fuck. Only thing they care about is € sign. So where does morality come into it?

I just dont understand why people dont just admit that solicitors/barristers/etc put money over conscience/morality first? ... Oh and I aint no naive idiot too. But imagine a solicitor handling a case for some junkie scumbag who is just looking to get compensation. Claiming he fell down a hole when he was never near the place?!

But the same people would moan about a plummer charging them 90 euro to fix a tap? ... Calling them a bunch of 'ripping off, dirty, no decency, ****' .... what the difference IMO ... both looking to get paid.

LOL

K-9

rusty999 wrote: »

On a different note Can anyone tell me why the Rate Your Solicitor website appears to be taken down ? I always enjoyed reading the comments and ratings given by people on there and if you were unhappy with your solicitor you could tell it as it is so to speak. I heard something about it being sued which I think would be a pity as its peoples democratic right to be able to express their opinions.

I'd read it was about a claim. The problem was people were making some very libelous comments on it and if I was a solicitor myself I wouldn't entertain it as a forum for discussion over personal matters. People have a democratic right to say many things but law suits can shut down sites. I suppose it is open to someone else to try a similar site.