The Elephant in the Room

[Deleted member 37751]

Hello Donald.

Yawn.

 

[whitenemesis]

She knew what he'd done, she knew he was guilty and admitted so much later by saying she didn't believe lie-detectors because that nonce had passed one, what does that tell you?! And from what I recall a lawyer is not allowed to represent someone they know is guilty.

The fact she got him off on a technicality so he could more than likely carry on offending says as much about the defence as it does the prosecution as well.

A quick Google gave

"No matter what the defendant has done, he is not legally guilty until a prosecutor offers enough evidence to persuade a judge or jury to convict. However, the defense lawyer may not lie to the judge or jury by specifically stating that the defendant did not do something the lawyer knows the defendant did do."

Lawyer Thinks Client is Guilty: Does It Matter? Criminal Law Process | Nolo.com

 

[renault12ts]

She knew what he'd done, she knew he was guilty and admitted so much later by saying she didn't believe lie-detectors because that nonce had passed one, what does that tell you?! And from what I recall a lawyer is not allowed to represent someone they know is guilty.

The fact she got him off on a technicality so he could more than likely carry on offending says as much about the defence as it does the prosecution as well.

It happens everyday of the week in all courts that the defence knows the client is guilty...they are still entitled to be represented. The technicality was so apparent she would have been in trouble if she hadn't used it.

Do you honestly think she lied or otherwise to the court. The guy was going to jail...if the prosecution hadn't screwed up.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

It happens everyday of the week in all courts that the defence knows the client is guilty...they are still entitled to be represented.

This wouldn't normally be an issue but she is now trying to become the president of the US and your moral compass tends to be questioned in such matters.

 

[Lennox]

This wouldn't normally be an issue but she is now trying to become the president of the US and your moral compass tends to be questioned in such matters.

So what does your Compass tell you about Trump?? (oh and I wouldn't vote for either, I would move!)

 

[renault12ts]

This wouldn't normally be an issue but she is now trying to become the president of the US and your moral compass tends to be questioned in such matters.

Lee, you are wrong.

Every lawyer in the land has to represent the guilty as well as the innocent...on a daily basis. And of course they know the client is guilty. The lawyers in the case of Lee Rigby's killers knew their client was guilty, everyone did...but he still had to have a defence lawyer.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

So what does your Compass tell you about Trump?? (oh and I wouldn't vote for either, I would move!)

Bernie was my pick.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Lee, you are wrong.

You are answering your own questions here, I've never said that people shouldn't be entitled to legal representation, just that those who choose to represent nonces and the like are low on morals and if those same morals come up at a later date don't try the "I was just doing my job" schtick.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

And to those defending someone getting off a serious charge on a technicality, I'm sure you'd be the same if it happened to your son or daughter or family member wouldn't you!

 

[scumbag]

Surely getting off in a technicality is actually proof the case was inaccurate or incorrectly handled.

Therefore anyone with half a mind, who may have been affected by these issues, would want a proper and accurate case where the law can do it's job properly thus putting away people like that?

Once again your emotional language is getting the better of your head.

Would you rather have innocents being put away due to nobody actually ensuring that technicalities are judged correctly?

 

[markjay]

I don't disagree that Clinton is the lesser of the two evils, I disagree with your attempts to sprinkle sugar on the darker side of her public persona; nobody put a gun to her head to represent that dirty nonce, she did it and then got the ******* off on a technicality which tells you all you need to know about her morals.

It was her job as a lawyer.....

(a) If no lawyer will be found to defend those who commit the most horrific of crimes, then they will go FREE because by law they can not be tried without a defence lawyer.

(b) If she would have done her job with anything less than her best effort, there is a risk that the criminal will later win on appeal for having an incompetent defence legal team.

Under the current legal system both in the US and in the UK (and in democratic countries elsewhere), the only way to secure a (lasting) conviction for criminals is by ensuring that they are being represented by competent lawyers who provide them with best defence they can.

I am not a fan of Hillary either.... but I think that using the above against her is wrong. You could point out that - by her own admission - she tends to 'misspeak'... or that she played fast and loose with classified documents.... but NOT for doing her job as a defence attorney.

 

[brucemillar]

To quote my dear Defense Barrister friend and confidante "there is defense and there is defending" You are entitled by law to a defense. What that defense looks like, is not stipulated.

 

[markjay]

She knew what he'd done, she knew he was guilty and admitted so much later by saying she didn't believe lie-detectors because that nonce had passed one, what does that tell you?! And from what I recall a lawyer is not allowed to represent someone they know is guilty.

The fact she got him off on a technicality so he could more than likely carry on offending says as much about the defence as it does the prosecution as well.

Lee, you are wrong.

Every lawyer in the land has to represent the guilty as well as the innocent...on a daily basis. And of course they know the client is guilty. The lawyers in the case of Lee Rigby's killers knew their client was guilty, everyone did...but he still had to have a defence lawyer.

A lawyer is not allowed to say in court anything that he/she know to be untrue. Or to submit evidence they know is false. This is the limit of the restrictions imposed on them..... they can and should represent people who they think are guilty.

On another note.... the suggestion that lawyers are not allowed to represent people who they think are guilty is not only incorrect, it is also not feasible to achieve... you would in fact be asking defence lawyers to pass judgement on whether their client is guilty or not before the trial - or otherwise they can not decide whether they should or should not represent them. This would turn defence lawyers into judge-and-jury and as such would not be compatible with any western legals system.

 

[markjay]

To quote my dear Defense Barrister friend and confidante "there is defense and there is defending" You are entitled by law to a defense. What that defense looks like, is not stipulated.

OK, but are you hinting that Hillary Clinton should has provided just token defence and let the accused be convicted? If she did, Trump would have her hide for doing it, criticising her scruples morals and pointing out that she was a devious person etc etc.... this is clearly a damned-if you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't situation.

Trump's team are simply picking on her trying to dig up any dirt they can - which in itself is considered 'fair-play' in US elections - both sides do this - but my view that in this case they are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[renault12ts]

You are answering your own questions here, I've never said that people shouldn't be entitled to legal representation, just that those who choose to represent nonces and the like are low on morals and if those same morals come up at a later date don't try the "I was just doing my job" schtick.

Your argument doesn't stand up. Sometimes lawyers don't get a say in who they defend. If they did the system would fall down and some people would get off on a technicality...like not having their day in court because no one speak on their behalf.

You would not be able to name one lawyer in the UK who did not have to defend the indefensible at one time or another.

 

[brucemillar]

OK, but are you hinting that Hillary Clinton should has provided just token defence and let the accused be convicted? If she did, Trump would have her hide for doing it, criticising her scruples morals and pointing out that she was a devious person etc etc.... this is clearly a damned-if you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't situation.

Trump's team are simply picking on her trying to dig up any dirt they can - which in itself is considered 'fair-play' in US elections - both sides do this - but my view that in this case they are barking up the wrong tree.

Mark

Ian a word. No. I am repeating what a defence Barrister has said to me. Some will take a case, but may not defend it as rigorously as they may another case. This on the simple premise that guilt is obvious (Lee Rigby was mentioned earlier).

Technicalities are crucial for the law to be seen to be done and applied fairly to all. Process must be followed and if not then it is correct (no matter how upsetting that this may be for some) that it be flagged and acted upon.

 

[markjay]

Mark

Ian a word. No. I am repeating what a defence Barrister has said to me. Some will take a case, but may not defend it as rigorously as they may another case. This on the simple premise that guilt is obvious (Lee Rigby was mentioned earlier).

Technicalities are crucial for the law to be seen to be done and applied fairly to all. Process must be followed and if not then it is correct (no matter how upsetting that this may be for some) that it be flagged and acted upon.

OK - so to clarify... what is your position on the allegation made by Trump against Clinton in this matter? I.e. do you agree that her defending (and one may add adverbs such as 'aggressively', 'enthusiastically', etc) the accused in this case suggests questionable morality, or do you think that there is nothing in what happened there to portray Clinton in a bad light as such? Or possibly you may not have a view, which is also fine....

 

[brucemillar]

OK - so to clarify... what is your position on the allegation made by Trump against Clinton in this matter? I.e. do you agree that her defending (and one may add adverbs such as 'aggressively', 'enthusiastically', etc) the accused in this case suggests questionable morality, or do you think that there is nothing in what happened there to portray Clinton in a bad light as such? Or possibly you may not have a view, which is also fine....

My view?

I would not trust either Trump or Clinton as far as I could throw them both tied together. Trump is an established bully and serial liar (look at his dealing with Alex Salmond in Scotland and how he has attempted to deal with the people who live on the land that his golf course now surrounds).

Clinton just stumbles around from one disaster to the next. She is arguably a safer pair of hands than Trump as Commander in Chief with a finger on the nuclear button. But if she offered me a Polo Mint I would bet it had an off-center hole in it.

It is indeed a sad state when the best that this nation can provide is these two. But then look at us and our own crop of self serving "politicians". We have a ruling class that thrives on spin and zero substance. To even get to the top you have to level the field by competing at their level. So if they lie? you lie. If they cheat? you cheat. They are all corrupt with little thought for their voters or constituents.

I wrote a very personal letter to Jeremy Hunt. Stating facts and asking for his help, to help me, help myself, and save the NHS money & time. I opened my heart to him. I received a two line letter back from a minion, that pointed me at three public websites and suggested that I "try" them.

This on the same day that Hunt was in the press stating how he personally wants to improve cancer diagnosis rates in the UK. What a vile disgusting way to treat the very people who voted for you and have done no more than to offer help.

 

[Druk]

That's a great post Bruce: remembering this thread will get closed if there's any more mention of British politics.

 

[Scott_F]

This on the same day that Hunt was in the press stating how he personally wants to improve cancer diagnosis rates in the UK. What a vile disgusting way to treat the very people who voted for you and have done no more than to offer help.

One of about a million reasons not to vote that way then.