&quot;How can you defend scum like that?&quot;

Someone has to defend them. Not saying that personally I would like to, but it's a fundamental human right that people are entitled to a fair trial and so legal representation.

Reply 2

OP

Colly

Someone has to defend them. Not saying that personally I would like to, but it's a fundamental human right that people are entitled to a fair trial and so legal representation.

I agree that someone has to, but is there not any instance when you would turn around and say, "no"?

Reply 3

Colly

Personally I have no interest in criminal defence whatsoever, I would absolutely hate to represent the people you gave as examples.

Reply 4

litispendence

This is why I want to be a solicitor - no cab rank rule for them :wink:

Seriously though, I don't know what I'd do. I don't suppose it'd be easy to refuse.

Reply 5

OP

The problem i see is that the most ethically dubious cases draw the best lawyers... anyone can defend someone on the evidence, but it takes a decent lawyer to convince a judge to ignore seized drugs because of a screwed up warrent, or to convince a jury to go nullification.

Reply 6

sweetsiouxsie

i was thinking about this recently, and have decided to leave it to others to represent the dregs of society, , i cant really see myself in a court representing some of these people i remember doing visits to the mags and crown court and it was real eye opener

Reply 7

alocin

One of the reasons I want to work the CPS instead!

Reply 8

jurisprudence

I'd like to think that no matter how well I defended someone like this, the very fact that the CPS was bringing a prosecution would indicate that a conviction was possible if not likely. If you don't accept that individuals have a human right to a trial, then look at it from the point of wider society - that our legal system benefits from being challenged on a daily basis by competant lawyers.

Reply 9

Profesh

20

To paraphrase Helena Kennedy, Q.C.:

"One defends a client, as best said client would themselves given the relevant legal expertise."

Concerns of private morality are quite besides the point.

Reply 10

OP

Profesh

To paraphrase Helena Kennedy, Q.C.:

"One defends a client, as best said client would themselves given the relevant legal expertise."

Concerns of private morality are quite besides the point.

That may be the lie you tell yourself, but i bet you still feel them...

Reply 11

house badger

7

Surely working for the CPS brings up much the same problems just in reverse. What if you're required to prosecute someone you suspect is not actually guilty or alternatively someone you suspect to be guilty but you know that the evidence against them has been obtained improperly or that they've been made to confess under duress. Just because you work for the CPS does not mean that you can avoid issues of morality.

alocin

One of the reasons I want to work the CPS instead!

Reply 12

alocin

Yeah I know. But after the CPS test of is there a realistic prospect of conviction and then is it in the public interest to prosecute, I'd feel pretty okay about going ahead.

If the police had fabricated a load of evidence or something then that could still mean prosecuting someone who was entirely innocent, but that wouldn't exactly be my fault unless I should have known about it. So I'd feel sorry for the person affected but my conscience would still be fine.

Reply 13

OP

alocin

Yeah I know. But after the CPS test of is there a realistic prospect of conviction and then is it in the public interest to prosecute, I'd feel pretty okay about going ahead.

If the police had fabricated a load of evidence or something then that could still mean prosecuting someone who was entirely innocent, but that wouldn't exactly be my fault unless I should have known about it. So I'd feel sorry for the person affected but my conscience would still be fine.

What about being forced to prosecute (read persecute) some form of moral objector or a whistle-blower just because the powers that be decide for you that it is in the 'public good'?

Or prosecuting someone for an offence you know has a minimum sentence that really isn't warrented by the offender?

At least with the defence you can, if you really have to, wash your hands and say, "up with this i will not put"- do that in the CPS and it'll cost you your job.

With the defence, the problem comes when you defend the scum; with the prosecution, the problem comes when you prosecute the saintly. The defence arguments are the taxi-cab principle and 'everyone must have a defence', and the prosecution ones are 'well, it's in the public good'. Since when has the public good been the ultimate standard of morality?

Reply 14

Spunky

14

Crazy Mongoose

What about being forced to prosecute (read persecute) some form of moral objector or a whistle-blower just because the powers that be decide for you that it is in the 'public good'?

At least with the defence you can, if you really have to, wash your hands and say, "up with this i will not put"- do that in the CPS and it'll cost you your job.

Since when was Master Yoda a lawyer :p:

?

Can't say I'd ever be happy representing someone I didn't have full confidence in of being innocent, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't do it. I also don't like doing exams, but if I want to get anywhere then I'm going to have to. Unfortunately, we're not all Ally McBeal (though even she's represented dubious people).

Reply 15

OP

Casey

Since when was Master Yoda a lawyer :p:

?

Lol it's yorkshire phrasing actually, don't know where it comes from... not even used that much in Yorkshire anymore.

Casey

Can't say I'd ever be happy representing someone I didn't have full confidence in of being innocent, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't do it. I also don't like doing exams, but if I want to get anywhere then I'm going to have to. Unfortunately, we're not all Ally McBeal (though even she's represented dubious people).

But is there any person you know for a fact you wouldn't represent?

Reply 16

Spunky

14

Crazy Mongoose

Lol it's yorkshire phrasing actually, don't know where it comes from... not even used that much in Yorkshire anymore.

But is there any person you know for a fact you wouldn't represent?

What right do I have to assume someone is guilty, unless they admit it to me (in which case I wouldn't represent them obviously) then as a lawyer I should do my best to defend them.

Reply 17

alocin

If I'd be forced to prosecute someone for a crime that I really didn't agree with, say if the government made a really stupid law that I thought was immoral, then I'd probably kick up as big a fuss as I could then resign and go and farm llamas...

Reply 18

JJ Jones

I would have no qualms representing anyone who had done anything, no matter how serious. Guilty parties generally avoid justice for two reasons, those being incompetence/failure to follow procedure by the police or loopholes in the legal system. By testing the system you help plug the latter, whilst the flak recieved when the police fail to secure convictions in high profile cases helps to address the former. People who say that they believe in the legal system and yet claim they wouldnt defend certain suspects are hypocrites as the system wouldnt function if both sides could not obtain competent counsel, and if the system didnt function the convictions it reached would be meaningless. If it wasnt for the appalling pay that criminal lawyers (and especially criminal defence barristers) recieve, I would have loved to get a job trying to get all sorts of sinister b*stards off. But thats just my opinion...

Reply 19

chriswhit