Are all lawyers and solicitors scum

Shaboro1986 said:
Not when there's 100% evidence they actually did the crime
Click to expand...

Who decides that?
Are you suggesting some sort of trial before the trial to decide whether the evidence is 100% or not? If so, is the accused entitled to legal representation at that pre-trial to decide whether they should have representation in the actual trial?

Or are you suggesting that the CPS should just decide whether or not the accused is entitled to a defence? In which case we might as well not bother with any trial at all, and accused is the same as guilty.
 
Legal aid rates are pathetic, the days of well off legal aid lawyers has long gone. To put it in perspective, the care rate at the moment is 52.57 per hour, it was 64.90 more than a decade ago. This is cases where you may very well be dealing with children who are the victims of sexual abuse, physical abuse and in some cases death.

That rate is for a fee earner who has been through college, university and then further legal training. It includes insurance, running an office and clerical support. How much does a plumber or mechanic charge per hour?

With regard to criminal solicitors, you need to look to government for perspective. As has been mentioned, many of the people going through the court criminal system are there because of government and they will be there again because of government.

The whole court system is creaking, the prisons are full, the funding isn’t there for other interventions. Government guidelines currently are that unless it is a particularly violent crime, the likelihood is that you won’t be going to prison.

everyone deserves representation. It’s a corner stone of justice. Lawyers will just do the best with a poor hand in most cases. The addict who is back before the court for the latest case of shoplifting, an excuse will be made and a sentence handed down. What the lawyer says will have no bearing on the sentence, the judge knows it, the defence lawyer knows it.

Government decide the sentence protocol. “Justice” through the courts in most cases is simply an administrative exercise to ensure that the correct procedures are followed.

Stating Lawyers are scum is a very lazy and poorly informed view and smacks of ignorance.
 
I think the Shaboro may be attempting to instigate a conversation around the moral / ethical principles involved in barristers attempting to obtain a not guilty verdict for a defendant who they know (or strongly believe) to be guilty, which is of course the role they are specifically there to perform.

And of course it is a morally complex concept.

However we as a society have been unable to come up with a better solution or process, so until we do, there is no alternative.
 
Shaboro1986 said:
I didn't say it was a bad thing, it's the 5hitty excuses that are used that annoy me
Click to expand...
They may "annoy" you, but be aware that the articles in any news media are a journalists report of what he perceives to be newsworthy to his media platform audience. Good news doesnt make an ignorant public want to read or attract them to information platforms.
Advertisers wont back factual reports which tend not to be read by those who want to know about Screwfix latest offers or remote-controlled door bells.
The journalists piece will also be edited and adapted at the direction of his Editor - so we get a very condensed narrow viewing angle of the case.
Everyone acused of any breach of law deserves to be heard and defended.

Its howling hypocrisy that Julian Assange has been prohibited by this Governement and the Tory`s before that, to a fair hearing in open court.
His crime is reporting the crimes of Government - of making Governments accountable.

He awaits rendition to the USA - because our Government allows a foreign power jurisdiction to override our Judicial System.

Lets ask ourselves why the media prefers to fill the papers full of rabble-rousing schitt - but havent raised any questions about illegal detention of an innocent man in a Class A Prison in UK - awaiting Biden`s summons for him to be taken to the USA.

Justice?
justice.jpeg.jpeg
 
I suppose those 'lefty' lawyres defending those pesky lefty crims and layabouts who dare criticise the govt are scum as well. Is shaboro Priti Patel?
 
Richyboro said:
I suppose those 'lefty' lawyres defending those pesky lefty crims and layabouts who dare criticise the govt are scum as well. Is shaboro Priti Patel?
Click to expand...
Ironic how you mention that:
Whilst being coniving two faced liars this Government demonises those who dare to challenge them and the establishment - especially over the question of Human rights Abuses [Like the "Spy Cops" scandal - where undercover officers fertilised legitimate female protesters in order to blackmail and infiltrate perfectly legal open organisations].
Priti Politi doesnt like democracy because it exposes Governments lies and points the finger of accountability at those responsible.
Marginalising "Lefty Lawyers" is part of an orchestrated campaign to attack human rights legislation and undermine our rights and freedoms in our own country.
It wasnt an off-hand remark - and it wont be the last.
Her politics and her kind are a threat to democracy.
 
Anyone who defends someone who the are fully aware has committed a crime to another clearly has no morals and is a leech.
 
borgelite said:
Anyone who defends someone who the are fully aware has committed a crime to another clearly has no morals and is a leech.
Click to expand...

But that’s the system that is already in place (which they didn’t create) and if they don’t represent them, someone else will.

Don’t hate the player, hate the game. Only problem with that is nobody has been able to create a better game.
 
Heam44 said:
I think the Shaboro may be attempting to instigate a conversation around the moral / ethical principles involved in barristers attempting to obtain a not guilty verdict for a defendant who they know (or strongly believe) to be guilty, which is of course the role they are specifically there to perform.

And of course it is a morally complex concept.

However we as a society have been unable to come up with a better solution or process, so until we do, there is no alternative.
Click to expand...
I am not sure a Barrister can know his client is guilty. He then has to plead guilty. I could be wrong.
 
Knowingly getting a murderer off, which has happened plenty of times is having no morals in my opinion - Simple
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top