"He comes from a good family"-WTF?

lazygal

Just listening to a case where a man was convicted of trying to abduct and sexually assault a young teenager. His solicitor, in response to the conviction, said to the judge that the man 'comes from a good family'. Why is this relevant to the case? Why is anyone's 'good' background any sort of mitigating circumstance when they've been convicted of a crime? Sure, we might as well let off all criminals who 'come from a good family' and only convict those with scumbags for parents if that's the reasoning the legal system applies to sentencing.

smash

Another one : "Ah he's a character isn't he"

No he's not, he's a f*ck up with serious issues!

Battered Mars Bar

The legal system is stuck in la la land imo

Ush1

Surely a good family makes things worse. You messed up despite getting opportunities.

cocoshovel

Solicitors/barristers/whatever they're called always used this type of fúcking excuse when defending their little knacker clients. Complete scumbags themselves and I often wonder how they live with themselves and such a career.

lazygal

smash wrote: »

Another one : "Ah he's a character isn't he"

No he's not, he's a f*ck up with serious issues!

The convicted had taken a lot of drink on the night in question is another one. Was someone forcing that tenth pint and fifth shot down your throat? FFS, if you get bladdered, surely that's no one's fault but your own and not a reason for a lighter or reduced custodial sentence.

My name is URL

I never got why people say those sort of things in relation to stories like this. Another thing I don't understand is why a persons occupation is considered when sentences are handed out.. what the fcuk does it matter like?.. the crime is the same regardless of what job the accused had before.

Seachmall

Because people (read: the jury) respond to emotional arguments and stereotypes.

A good looking, well dressed, clean shaven, white, upper class man from a good background who "made one uncharacteristic mistake" is more likely to get off than an ugly, unkempt, black, lower class man.

The "he comes from a good family" is just part of the play, no doubt his lawyers would have advised him how to dress and coached him on how to answer questions to help complete the image.

chocolatrose

Coming from a good family isn't going to miraculously change his behaviour ffs...the solicitor was really clutching at straws there

smash

They're either always from a good family or they had a hard upbringing. Makes no difference in my opinion, they're still cut from the same cloth!

Ghost Buster

Surely "he comes from a bad family (And so knows no better) would make more sense as a defence. "He comes from a good family' to me means he has less of an excuse.

shampon

cocoshovel wrote: »

Solicitors/barristers/whatever they're called always used this type of fúcking excuse when defending their little knacker clients. Complete scumbags themselves and I often wonder how they live with themselves and such a career.

Sure they'll meet their legal aid sponging clients in hell.

Skid

I have never understood the pathetic mitigation defences that Judges swallow

'He's from a Good family' and 'He's from a Bad family' are both frequently trotted out.

What if you were from an 'Average Family' - is that supposed to keep you out of Prison too? :rolleyes:

shampon

Skid wrote: »

I have never understood the pathetic mitigation defences that Judges swallow

'He's from a Good family' and 'He's from a Bad family' are both frequently trotted out.

What if you were from an 'Average Family' - is that supposed to keep you out of Prison too? :rolleyes:

Nah, you'll end up serving the maximum sentence. Sure middle class males also get rode raw by the state.

Captain Graphite

Ush1 wrote: »

Surely a good family makes things worse. You messed up despite getting opportunities.

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Surely "he comes from a bad family (And so knows no better) would make more sense as a defence. "He comes from a good family' to me means he has less of an excuse.

This was my line of thought too.

"He came from a shite family and his parents couldn't care less about him, so he grew up not knowing any better" is surely a better defence than "he came from a wonderful family and had plenty of opportunities to succeed in life but threw them away 'cause he's a fucking scumbag" ?

Seachmall

Captain Graphite wrote: »

"He came from a shite family and his parents couldn't care less about him, so he grew up not knowing any better" is surely a better defence than "he came from a wonderful family and had plenty of opportunities to succeed in life but threw them away 'cause he's a fucking scumbag" ?

If he "doesn't know any better" he's likely to reoffend, he's a bad seed.

If he comes from a "good family" he just made a mistake, but he's capable of turning himself around.

SEPT 23 1989

The Judge also came from a good family

shopaholic01

I think it's more an indication that the solicitor knew it was indefensible but had to be seen to earn his money.

It's really just another day at the office for them, doubt they give a sh1t either way.

Handsome Bob

I assume it's attempt to manipulate the jury into thinking that the act was out of character and because he comes from a good family where no abuse has taken place, that what he did was a "one off".

While the lad from a poor socio-economic background with a suspect family is "more likely to offend" if let off.

TwoShedsJackson

smash wrote: »

Another one : "Ah he's a character isn't he"

No he's not, he's a f*ck up with serious issues!

'A character' is a code-phrase for 'an irritating alcoholic' in Ireland.

smash

Seachmall wrote: »

If he comes from a "good family" he just made a mistake, but he's capable of turning himself around.

Did you read what he did? Not like he was caught smoking a joint or something small...

Captain Graphite

Seachmall wrote: »

If he "doesn't know any better" he's likely to reoffend, he's a bad seed.

If he comes from a "good family" he just made a mistake, but he's capable of turning himself around.

Ok, that's a fair point and I hadn't considered that.

You'd have to wonder though how someone from a loving supportive family. that was raised to be a decent human being, is capable of making a mistake on that level! Not that I condone it when someone from a less-privileged background does it or anything, but at least in that case you can (sort of) understand the factors that may have led to it.

EdenHazard

Seachmall wrote: »

Because people (read: the jury) respond to emotional arguments and stereotypes.

A good looking, well dressed, clean shaven, white, upper class man from a good background who "made one uncharacteristic mistake" is more likely to get off than an ugly, unkempt, black, lower class man.

The "he comes from a good family" is just part of the play, no doubt his lawyers would have advised him how to dress and coached him on how to answer questions to help complete the image.

Why you using a hypothetical American(Perhaps English or French) court case scenario?

Dravokivich

Seachmall wrote: »

Because people (read: the jury) respond to emotional arguments and stereotypes.

A good looking, well dressed, clean shaven, white, upper class man from a good background who "made one uncharacteristic mistake" is more likely to get off than an ugly, unkempt, black, lower class man.

The "he comes from a good family" is just part of the play, no doubt his lawyers would have advised him how to dress and coached him on how to answer questions to help complete the image.

This ain't mississipi.

RichieC

They use the ****ty family line too when applicable.

the purple tin

Good point. Another one for young men is the solicitor mentioning that they play for their local GAA/football/hurling team eh, so what?

DEFTLEFTHAND

cocoshovel wrote: »

Solicitors/barristers/whatever they're called always used this type of fúcking excuse when defending their little knacker clients. Complete scumbags themselves and I often wonder how they live with themselves and such a career.

'Live with themselves' what utter nonsense to be spouting. No matter who you are or what you've done your entitled to legal representation and to a fair and partial hearing. Legal officers are there to provide that service, whats the problem?

68Murph68

Another one in a similar line is the - "it was totally out of character/this was the first time he did anything like"

1) It wasn't out of character; he/she did it (or at least is accused of the crime) so by definition it was in character. The odds of someone who was previously a calm, passive, relaxed,friendly individual committing a murder or assault out of nowhere is extremely unlikely.

2) Even the most hard-core depraved psychotic individual is only going to commit their terrible crimes for a tiny percentage of their life. If I spent an hour every month committing crimes, that would be 0.14% of the time. Would something I spend only 0.14% of my time doing, be considered in character or out-of-character?

3) Also chances are if someone is arrested for something it is very very very unlikely that it is the first time they have acted like an ass-hole. The odds are much more likely that the individual in question has probably broken the law numerous times previously but that this was the first time they were caught.

68Murph68

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

'Live with themselves' what utter nonsense to be spouting. No matter who you are or what you've done your entitled to legal representation and to a fair and partial hearing. Legal officers are there to provide that service, whats the problem?

Sure they are entitled to legal representation but there are clearly certain members of the legal profession who have no problem making a living off

It's one of those professions that I personally could never follow for moral reasons.

Milk & Honey

Seachmall wrote: »

Because people (read: the jury) respond to emotional arguments and stereotypes.

The jury only decide innocence or guilt. they have no input into sentence.

Milk & Honey

Handsome Bob wrote: »

I assume it's attempt to manipulate the jury into thinking that the act was out of character and because he comes from a good family where no abuse has taken place, that what he did was a "one off".

.

The jury are not told anything like that unless it is relevant to the case. By the time the sentence is to be passed the jury have already delivered a guilty verdict and it is only then that the mitigation plea is made. The jury have no part to play in the sentencing process.

Milk & Honey

lazygal wrote: »

Just listening to a case where a man was convicted of trying to abduct and sexually assault a young teenager. His solicitor, in response to the conviction, said to the judge that the man 'comes from a good family'. Why is this relevant to the case? Why is anyone's 'good' background any sort of mitigating circumstance when they've been convicted of a crime? Sure, we might as well let off all criminals who 'come from a good family' and only convict those with scumbags for parents if that's the reasoning the legal system applies to sentencing.

Likelihood of re-offending is a major factor in sentencing. Somebody with alot of family support might be less inclined to re-offend. That might justify some of the sentence being suspended. The maximum sentence in serious cases is very long. A judge will want to know as much as possible about an offender before imposing sentence. It might well aggravate a sentence if the person is someone who should have known better.