The Student Room Group

could you as a lawyer represent a known terrorist, child abuser etc etc?

like the swedish lawyer that will now defend Salah Abdul Salam for the paris islamist murders

i know the principle of law allows everyone a right of defence - but could you represent these type of people and argue in their favour?

Scroll to see replies

Well, somebody's got to do it.
I suppose any good lawyer would. Although the acts of these people are despicable, we live in a democracy - and thus everybody has a right to a fair trial. So, in defending them - you're not condoning their actions, just upholding the principles of justice.
Reply 3
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
Well, somebody's got to do it.


yes would you want to
Yes as that's your job. The belief in the rule of law is greater and your professionalism means you would do a good job.
I think everyone deserves a fair trial. My personal views aside, I'd be willing to do my job.
Reply 6
Original post by to-be-continued
I suppose any good lawyer would. Although the acts of these people are despicable, we live in a democracy - and thus everybody has a right to a fair trial. So, in defending them - you're not condoning their actions, just upholding the principles of justice.


but have to act in away thaty benefits them. if you come accross damning evidence that proves they are guilty - you have to keep your mouth shut

its a moral question rather than professional. imagine if this lawyer got adbul salem to walk free on legal technicality...
(edited 8 years ago)
No. I didn't even feel comfortable having RBS as a client.

Posted from TSR Mobile
"argue in their favour" is really just clarifying facts etc so the correct sentence can be passed down.


but no, i wouldn't.
Reply 9
Original post by 999tigger
Yes as that's your job. The belief in the rule of law is greater and your professionalism means you would do a good job.
ok fair enough. say you got a child abuser off his charge, then he went out and did it again, would you represent him again?
Reply 10
Original post by Shia Kafir
"argue in their favour" is really just clarifying facts etc so the correct sentence can be passed down.


but no, i wouldn't.

we all know defense law is not jsut about arguing facts - its about putting ideas/doubt in minds of judge and jury. that would be your job in this case
Original post by Chakede
ok fair enough. say you got a child abuser off his charge, then he went out and did it again, would you represent him again?


When you say got him off you really mean the court found him innocent,, sp whatever you thought he did in the first place it wasnt illegal.

Yes because they are different offences. The lawyers job isnt to pass judgment, they just represent. You do realise he's innocent till proven guilty?
Original post by Chakede
we all know defense law is not jsut about arguing facts - its about putting ideas/doubt in minds of judge and jury. that would be your job in this case

yes but i could advise my client to enter a guilty plea


if the prosecution's arguments are so solid they shouldnt have anything to worry about from me poking holes etc, should they?
Reply 13
Original post by 999tigger
When you say got him off you really mean the court found him innocent,, sp whatever you thought he did in the first place it wasnt illegal.

Yes because they are different offences. The lawyers job isnt to pass judgment, they just represent. You do realise he's innocent till proven guilty?


my point was in refernce to a child abuser - ie you know he did it and you got him off. then he went out and did it again and he came to you and asked you to get him off again
Original post by Chakede
yes would you want to


I certainly wouldn't want to, but I'd do it if it was my job.
Because the client, like any client is "innocent until proven guilty" under the eyes of the law, I would do it.
Reply 16
Innocent until proven guilty, if they're genuinely guilty - you wont really have to do much hahaha
Reply 17
Original post by Shia Kafir
yes but i could advise my client to enter a guilty plea


if the prosecution's arguments are so solid they shouldnt have anything to worry about from me poking holes etc, should they?


your job if you took it is to knock their case over with doubt, if you manage to put even one doubt or proceedural mistake in play, then essentially you can get him off
Of course, the idea of "defending a known terrorist or child abuser" is itself a little disingenuous - in the eyes of the law, at least, a defendant isn't a known terrorist or child abuser until after he's been defended by a lawyer. That's the point of the trial!
Original post by Chakede
my point was in refernce to a child abuser - ie you know he did it and you got him off. then he went out and did it again and he came to you and asked you to get him off again


It doesnt work like that. If you know for a fact they did it because they told you and they intend to plead innocent, then you have to withdraw from representing the client. You cannot mislead the court and thats an overriding duty.

Quick Reply

Latest