[Kigreg]

I wanted to know your thoughts about the fact that people who are seen as 'monsters' in the eyes of society are defended in courts even though they have done things which are inexcusable such as murder (mass), rape (mass) etc.

Furthermore, do you think not only should these people have the right to be defended, but should the barrister be able to drop the case, or not take it on, or tell the judge if they know their client is guilty?

[Templar49]

(Original post by Kigreg)
Furthermore, do you think not only should these people have the right to be defended, but should the barrister be able to drop the case, or not take it on, or tell the judge if they know their client is guilty?

What.

It undermines a significant principle of the rule of law if the defendant tells their legal representative something in confidence and that representative then tells everyone what they said. And I thought it was illegal for them to do that anyway?

Besides, everyone has the right to a fair trial - it's arguably the most basic human right.

[Kigreg]

Yeah I know it's a law that everyone has, but it is ethical for those people who have done things which are indefensible to be defended? And where do we draw the line of those who should have the right and those who should not?

[Templar49]

Well, yes. If it's indefensible, then they'll be found guilty, right? So presumably it shouldn't matter if they get a chance to defend themselves or not.

Ever heard of 'innocent until proven guilty'? However indefensible the act, you first need to prove they've done it, otherwise they haven't gotten a fair trial. And I'm sure if you were wrongly accused of raping someone, you'd want to defend yourself; it'd be the same for someone else who was wrongly accused, despite the fact that if you had your way, they'd be in jail straight away, without that chance.

[King Kebab]

(Original post by Kigreg)
I wanted to know your thoughts about the fact that people who are seen as 'monsters' in the eyes of society are defended in courts even though they have done things which are inexcusable such as murder (mass), rape (mass) etc.

Furthermore, do you think not only should these people have the right to be defended, but should the barrister be able to drop the case, or not take it on, or tell the judge if they know their client is guilty?

EVERYONE has the right to be heard at a trial if they are charged with committing a crime. No exceptions.

[Its A Catch 22]

First and foremost that relies on the presumption that any act can be thought of as indefensible, which is itself, an entire debate.

[AverageExcellence]

The cab rank rule is fundamental in making sure the legal defence area fair and impartial. Everyone has the right to a defence even if no such defence exists. What if the person committed a horrible crime had a mental disorder? that would need to be reflected in a court of law.

[Kigreg]

Some of you I think are focusing too much on the fact that if they are indefensible then they will be found guilty, yes that's most likely correct, however it's more a question as to should people such as Hitler have the right to be defended? For the heinous crimes they have committed, do they deserve the right to be defended? Bearing in mind through technicality of barrister they might be able to be acquitted or sentenced reduced.

[viriol]

(Original post by Kigreg)
Some of you I think are focusing too much on the fact that if they are indefensible then they will be found guilty, yes that's most likely correct, however it's more a question as to should people such as Hitler have the right to be defended? For the heinous crimes they have committed, do they deserve the right to be defended? Bearing in mind through technicality of barrister they might be able to be acquitted or sentenced reduced.

You're assuming that it can be established, a priori and in a Universal fashion, that such people have committed those crimes. Truth is, without a fair trial, such a justice is no better than old time witch hunts!

[justanotherposter]

The problem is 'innocent' just means that it can't be proved with 100% certainty someone is guilty, you can say with 98% certainty that someone is guilty and they will be called innocent. Numerous lawyers will know their client is probably guilty and still defend him by exploiting loopholes and trying to manipulate the facts of a case, which is clearly unethical.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

You seem to assume that some things are objectively indefensible.

I think in reality, like all issues of morality, it has to be a subjective question.

[viriol]

(Original post by justanotherposter)
The problem is 'innocent' just means that it can't be proved with 100% certainty someone is guilty, you can say with 98% certainty that someone is guilty and they will be called innocent. Numerous lawyers will know their client is probably guilty and still defend him by exploiting loopholes and trying to manipulate the facts of a case, which is clearly unethical.

Would you prefer punishing those 2% innocents?

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by justanotherposter)
The problem is 'innocent' just means that it can't be proved with 100% certainty someone is guilty, you can say with 98% certainty that someone is guilty and they will be called innocent. Numerous lawyers will know their client is probably guilty and still defend him by exploiting loopholes and trying to manipulate the facts of a case, which is clearly unethical.

There are so many things wrong with this.

No, you don't have to be 100% sure. You have to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a different level for all people. But it is not, for a reasonable person, 100%. It is not 'beyond all doubt', nor is it 'beyond ALL reasonable doubt'.

And secondly, your duty is to give your client the best possible representation while adhering to the rules of procedure. It is not unethical, in my belief, to do this for anyone. You don't choose your clients, you know. One week you may defend a man that is wrongly accused, the next someone that is obviously guilty, but you must give both the best representation you can provide. Ultimately, if someone is guilty under the law and they are robustly prosecuted, they will generally go to prison.

If you look at the percentage of not-guilty pleas that end in acquittals, I think you will see that very few people are acquitted.

Even then, this doesn't mean guilty people are going free; it generally means they are innocent (ie they did not commit the actus reus or they did not have the requisite mens rea).

[LarrikinLibertine]

(Original post by Kigreg)
I wanted to know your thoughts about the fact that people who are seen as 'monsters' in the eyes of society are defended in courts even though they have done things which are inexcusable such as murder (mass), rape (mass) etc.

Furthermore, do you think not only should these people have the right to be defended, but should the barrister be able to drop the case, or not take it on, or tell the judge if they know their client is guilty?

If you tell the person who's defending you flat out your guilty then they're not allowed to defend you on an innocent plea. Anyway, you should just see it as the barrister presenting the defendants argument and the relevant facts to the Jury whose job it is then decide whether defendant is innocent or guilty. As long as the barrister just presents an argument on behalf of the defendant and does not lie I see nothing unethical about defending a guilty person.

[justanotherposter]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
There are so many things wrong with this.

No, you don't have to be 100% sure. You have to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a different level for all people. But it is not, for a reasonable person, 100%. It is not 'beyond all doubt', nor is it 'beyond ALL reasonable doubt'.

And secondly, your duty is to give your client the best possible representation while adhering to the rules of procedure. It is not unethical, in my belief, to do this for anyone. You don't choose your clients, you know. One week you may defend a man that is wrongly accused, the next someone that is obviously guilty, but you must give both the best representation you can provide. Ultimately, if someone is guilty under the law and they are robustly prosecuted, they will generally go to prison.

If you look at the percentage of not-guilty pleas that end in acquittals, I think you will see that very few people are acquitted.

Even then, this doesn't mean guilty people are going free; it generally means they are innocent (ie they did not commit the actus reus or they did not have the requisite mens rea).

Any private lawyer can refuse any client if he/she believes them to be guilty.

I was refering more to lawyers who know for certain their clients are guilty and so try to put false doubt into the jury's mind. This was in response to some people saying if the crime is that bad then they will be found guilty regardless of the defense, while our justice system isn't perfect I understand it is better than a system where we throw people into prison with circumstantial evidence.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by justanotherposter)
Any private lawyer can refuse any client if he/she believes them to be guilty.

I was refering more to lawyers who know for certain their clients are guilty and so try to put false doubt into the jury's mind. This was in response to some people saying if the crime is that bad then they will be found guilty regardless of the defense, while our justice system isn't perfect I understand it is better than a system where we throw people into prison with circumstantial evidence.

As to the first point, you are simply wrong. Google 'the cab rank rule'.


Paragraph 602 of the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales states:
A self-employed barrister must comply with the ‘Cab-rank rule’ and accordingly except only as otherwise provided in paragraphs 603 604 605 and 606 he must in any field in which he professes to practise in relation to work appropriate to his experience and seniority and irrespective of whether his client is paying privately or is publicly funded:
(a) accept any brief to appear before a Court in which he professes to practise;
(b) accept any instructions;
(c) act for any person on whose behalf he is instructed;
and do so irrespective of (i) the party on whose behalf he is instructed (ii) the nature of the case and (iii) any belief or opinion which he may have formed as to the character reputation cause conduct guilt or innocence of that person.

As to the second point, there is no such thing as 'false doubt'. You either have reasonable doubt or you do not.

[Weeves]

Innocent until proven guilty.

[emerset]

(Original post by Kigreg)
Some of you I think are focusing too much on the fact that if they are indefensible then they will be found guilty, yes that's most likely correct, however it's more a question as to should people such as Hitler have the right to be defended? For the heinous crimes they have committed, do they deserve the right to be defended? Bearing in mind through technicality of barrister they might be able to be acquitted or sentenced reduced.

I think you should restate your question from "should child-rapists and mass-murderers even go to trial" to "should these people be allowed any penalty-flexibility within the legal system". Seriously, before a case, how can we even know if someone even DID the crime? It would be a sick system indeed that didn't even put someone in court after being accused of being a murderer, that reminds me of the French Reign of Terror where people were put to the guillotine without a fair trial.

Are you really suggesting jailing someone simply for being ACCUSED of these "unspeakable crimes"? You're unbelievable.

[That Bearded Man]

Is it ethical for a man who kills 733 children to have legal representation? Yes, because it is better to have a law in place to protect everyone, than have that system, whereby my lawyer might go "he looks guilty, I won't bother" even if I'm innocent.

[Kigreg]

But if someone has done something so Inexcusable, why do thy deserve the right to be defended?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iP