Are all lawyers and solicitors scum

Same_as_before said:
I am not sure a Barrister can know his client is guilty. He then has to plead guilty. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Technically this is true, albeit if the defendant has admitted his guilt then ahe/he cannot represent them if they lie in their defence. In other words there still be a plea of not guilty, but not based on an untruthful account by the defendant.
 
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...
This isn't allowed to happen. Barristers and solicitors have a duty not to mislead the court.

The rule of law is the cornerstone of a civilised society and the right to a fair trail is integral to this. If you fail to understand this then I fear there's not much we can do.

The last comment being directed at the OP.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
Technically this is true, albeit if the defendant has admitted his guilt then ahe/he cannot represent them if they lie in their defence. In other words there still be a plea of not guilty, but not based on an untruthful account by the defendant.
Click to expand...
Technically this is not true, in fact not true at all. A pleading of not guilty is not a statement of fact and its not subject to perjury penalties. Because of this a lawyer or barrister can allow a client that is guilty still enter a not guilty plea without being penalised himself. A lawyer or barrister who knowingly allows a witness or the defendant to take the oath and lie on the stand is subbourning perjury and is committing a crime himself.

Much of this comes from the fact that the defence may not apportion guilt for the crime being tried, for example murder v manslaughter. That is the domain of the jury not the defence. Even if the defendant admitted to killing someone and is being tried for murder, he may still be not guilty of murder.
 
I understand that we need legal representation. That said taking a job to defend someone who you know is guilty couldn't sit right?. You are basically using every tool to get a lesser sentance.

Imagine defending a Pedo found with 1000s of child images on a computer. You know he's guilty but you have to get him the shortest sentance possible knowing he could re offend or worse when he gets out.

How do you take on the job of of defending Fred West or Ian Huntley😒? Working every angle from Mental health and other things to try and drive down the sentance or even get them off on a technicality.

I'm sorry but going home to your family thinking 'yes I've got a Pedo off on a technicality or suspended sentance' can't be job satisfaction (although they probably go to a nice house and car).
 
S7DiscoDown said:
I understand that we need legal representation. That said taking a job to defend someone who you know is guilty couldn't sit right?. You are basically using every tool to get a lesser sentance.

Imagine defending a Pedo found with 1000s of child images on a computer. You know he's guilty but you have to get him the shortest sentance possible knowing he could re offend or worse when he gets out.

How do you take on the job of of defending Fred West or Ian Huntley😒? Working every angle from Mental health and other things to try and drive down the sentance or even get them off on a technicality.

I'm sorry but going home to your family thinking 'yes I've got a Pedo off on a technicality or suspended sentance' can't be job satisfaction (although they probably go to a nice house and car).
Click to expand...
Can you give us a contemporaneous example of that scenario?
 
The issue is England has an adversarial system, where the court acts as a referee between the prosecution and the defence

Most of Europe has an inquisitorial system where the court establishes facts by investigating the case.
 
It means contemporary or of the same period of time. In other words do you have a recent example of a barrister doing what you accuse them of?
 
Same_as_before said:
I am not sure a Barrister can know his client is guilty. He then has to plead guilty. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

Yeah you’re right (although I think they can admit guilt to their barrister in America, which is of course irrelevant), but I’m referring to when the defendant hasn’t admitted his guilt to the barrister (conveniently for the barrister) but the barrister is as certain as he can be that the defendant is guilty but obviously defends him anyway.
 
Shaboro1986 said:
Firstly, reading the gazette and the excuses they use to try and get the 5hite out of jail. Then watching police interceptors and the little fcuks have stolen cars and crashed them and burgled peoples houses yet they still get off with it. The solicitors are just as bad as the 5hite they try to defend
Click to expand...
I went to the College of law, York) and before I went to law school I worked for a law firm and did criminal stuff. It's a job and they are paid to represent people in an objective manner .
I never once asked anyone if they 'did it' , job was to represent them based upon the evidence and what they said.
 
I have already said why a barrister can be told that his client committed the crime and have him plead not guilty with impunity. The plea is non evidential, its not given under oath and as such someone can admit to a crime to their barrister and still plead not guilty. Ascercion of guilt or innocence is the domain of the jury not the judge nor the representation. The client may even think he is guilty of the crime he is being prosecuted for and in fact not be guilty at all.

An officer of the court cannot lie to the court nor can he knowingly allow a defence witness to lie under oath, similar for prosecution officers.

Guilt or innocence is not for the solicitor nor barrister to decide.

It's simple stuff
 
Shaboro1986 said:
Firstly, reading the gazette and the excuses they use to try and get the 5hite out of jail. Then watching police interceptors and the little fcuks have stolen cars and crashed them and burgled peoples houses yet they still get off with it. The solicitors are just as bad as the 5hite they try to defend
Click to expand...
Mate you clearly are an idiot. May I politely suggest you stop reading the Gazette
 
Laughing said:
Technically this is not true, in fact not true at all. A pleading of not guilty is not a statement of fact and its not subject to perjury penalties. Because of this a lawyer or barrister can allow a client that is guilty still enter a not guilty plea without being penalised himself. A lawyer or barrister who knowingly allows a witness or the defendant to take the oath and lie on the stand is subbourning perjury and is committing a crime himself.

Much of this comes from the fact that the defence may not apportion guilt for the crime being tried, for example murder v manslaughter. That is the domain of the jury not the defence. Even if the defendant admitted to killing someone and is being tried for murder, he may still be not guilty of murder.
Click to expand...
Correct, but I was talking about an account provided by a defendant - a lawyer can't defend an untrue statement.
Of course a defendant can admit carrying out the act but still plead not guilty, that's different
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
Correct, but I was talking about an account provided by a defendant - a lawyer can't defend an untrue statement.
Of course a defendant can admit carrying out the act but still plead not guilty, that's different
Click to expand...
You are right, a lawyer cannot suborn perjury. What he can do is represent the defendant as if he were innocent, even if the defendant believes himself to be guilty. He cannot present evidence he knows to be untrue.

Remember guilt or innocence is not the domain of counsel.
 
Its not quite as serious but the majority of solicitors I've used during the buying and selling of houses have been useless. I'd even go as far as saying the majority are dishonest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top