Planetarion Forums

Radical Edward · 28 Jul 2005, 15:27

I'm not talking about the farce that is Gitmo, but the hopefully nice and civilised atmosphere of Paddington Green police station, where one of the suspects for the recent attempted suicide bombings is now being held.

now of course this chap will have to be given legal counsel and so on, but given that he is most likely part of a plot to kill alot of people, what are the responsibilities of the Lawyer representing him in the interrogation, and of course later on in court? It seems somewhat a conflicting position to have to be trying to defend this chap, when he could well have information that could stop another massacre. I have no exact questions as such regarding this, but a little information from the lawyers on the board as to what might be going on there would be welcome, it's a fascinating situation and I'd like to know more about it

dda · 28 Jul 2005, 15:38

I general, the obligation of the defense attorney is to represent the best interests of his client, whatever that may be. The attorney sould try to marshall any information which might point in that direction. He might point out holes or inconsistencies in the prosecutions case. He might use those proctections which the law provides to his client. He will puit the prosecution to its burden of proof. If the client is guilty of a crime but has information which the government wants, the attorney would try to get as good a deal for his client as possible in return for the information. The more important the information, usually, the better the deal gets. England and the US have adeversarial forms of justice. It is felt that the best means of ascertaining the truth and justice is through the zealous, within ethical boundries, advocacy of each party's position by a competent advocate.

All Systems Go · 28 Jul 2005, 16:07

In the Devils Advocate Keanu Reeves refuses to defed one client because he doesn't believe he is innocent. Can public defenders who are court appointed to certain individuals do that?

Proteus · 28 Jul 2005, 16:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nantoz

Where's Yahwe?

At work, presumably. He's a lawyer, you know.

Proteus · 28 Jul 2005, 16:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nantoz

I thought lawyers only billed people for far too much money.
So there's more to it?

Unfortunately for me, yes.

dda · 28 Jul 2005, 17:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

In the Devils Advocate Keanu Reeves refuses to defed one client because he doesn't believe he is innocent. Can public defenders who are court appointed to certain individuals do that?

At least in the US, it is something which is rarely done. However, if a defense attorney feels that for any reason he can't or won't be able to give his best efforts to his clients case he is obligated to withdraw. The same goes for a prosecutor actually, if a prosecutor feels that he would be imparied in his ability to prosecute a particular case he is obligated to ask that the case be reassigned. In the case of a prosecutor it can be reassigned within the office. In the case of an area where they have an Office of the Public Defender with numerous attorneys it can be reassigned. If the lawyer is appointed then another lawyer can be appointed. If the lawyer has taken money for the defense then he must refund it and allow the client to find another attorney.

This is rarely done because the lawyer feels his client is guilty. Clients are usually guilty and there is usually a lot of evidence to show it, often including a confession. But, just because a person is guilty doesn't maen they aren't entitled to adequate representation. There are many outcomes even when someone is guilty and the attorney works to get the best outcome for his client.

Prosecutors are in a slightly different position. If a prosecutor feels that the defendant is innocent they cannot ethically argue that he is. A defense attorney cannot argue that his client is innocent if he KNOWS for a fact that he is, though believing and knowing are two different things. A defense attorney, however, even if he KNOWS his client is guilty can still argue that the jury should find his client not guilty because the state hasn't met its burden of proof.

In most respects, being a prosecutor is an easier job than being a defense attorney. There are fewer mine fields to traverse, they nomally have far greater resources at their command and society, generally, has a higher opinion of them than of defense lawyers.

Although I am a prosecutor myself, I have a great deal of admiration for those defense attorneys who do their job well and ethically. I not infrequently tell jurors this.

Yahwe · 28 Jul 2005, 18:44

I serve Justice.

Without Justice, without Fides, without the Rule of Law we are nothing and living would be a worthless commodity quickly lost by all.

there is no situation which could be so terrible as to justify damaging this.

Nofutcha · 29 Jul 2005, 02:43

Maybe they got the wrong guy. They just forgot to shoot first this time.

Rumad · 29 Jul 2005, 06:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

I serve Justice.

Without Justice, without Fides, without the Rule of Law we are nothing and living would be a worthless commodity quickly lost by all.

there is no situation which could be so terrible as to justify damaging this.

I don't think this is correct. Surely Justice is a prime belief of any decent human being, but I would gladly trade Justice as a concept if it meant saving lives from death/poverty.

At the end of the day Justice is only as good as those enforcing and is fallible.

Dante Hicks · 29 Jul 2005, 08:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rumad

I don't think this is correct. Surely Justice is a prime belief of any decent human being, but I would gladly trade Justice as a concept if it meant saving lives from death/poverty.

Do you think peace can be sustained without justice?

Rumad · 30 Jul 2005, 06:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Do you think peace can be sustained without justice?

Yes theoreticaly, practically probably not.

However bringing someone to Justice or seing justice being served is by no way compensatory for the loss of life due to a indiscriminate act. Just because someone is rich doesn't mean that the fact they employ 3rd world country citizens for peanuts should not be forgot.

At the end of the day Justice is and always remain a key and core value/belief in society, I don't however hold that justice is the be all and end all in society. Value of the loss of life or those struggling in poverty due to heinous acts cannot possibly even remotely be compensated by the fact that justice is served. Justice is a reaction, but not a solution.

Thanks for making me reread what I put yawhe @~~~~ a flower for you

Yahwe · 30 Jul 2005, 06:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rumad

At the end of the day Justice is and always remain a key and core value/belief in society, but that cannot possibly be of greater benefit or outweigh any act to get to that situation where justice needs to be served.

this doesn't make sense.

say what you mean again (you've time before they wake up and i'll delete this if you work out what you wanted to say)

mrmao · 30 Jul 2005, 06:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

I'm not talking about the farce that is Gitmo, but the hopefully nice and civilised atmosphere of Paddington Green police station, where one of the suspects for the recent attempted suicide bombings is now being held.

now of course this chap will have to be given legal counsel and so on, but given that he is most likely part of a plot to kill alot of people, what are the responsibilities of the Lawyer representing him in the interrogation, and of course later on in court? It seems somewhat a conflicting position to have to be trying to defend this chap, when he could well have information that could stop another massacre. I have no exact questions as such regarding this, but a little information from the lawyers on the board as to what might be going on there would be welcome, it's a fascinating situation and I'd like to know more about it

Well if i was an attouerny put into this case, i would probably recomend to my client pleading guilty then giving the police all the information he has on terroist plots, might get a lesser sentance.

Cooling · 30 Jul 2005, 07:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmao

Well if i was an attouerny put into this case, i would probably recomend to my client pleading guilty then giving the police all the information he has on terroist plots, might get a lesser sentance.

No you wouldn't.

You have been watching far too much Television.

It will rot your brain.

dda · 30 Jul 2005, 07:28

Law and Order isn't real?

shanebratt · 31 Jul 2005, 07:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nofutcha

Maybe they got the wrong guy. They just forgot to shoot first this time.

So wrong, but so funny

earlgrey · 31 Jul 2005, 22:05

I believe in justice and I think asylum seekers who blow up their host nation are several lightyears beneath contempt, nailing them to a tree by their testicles..... mmh I'd need to think about that one!

Vermillion · 1 Aug 2005, 00:35

I am no lawyer, but I do believe that the 'Attourney-Client' privilidge does NOT extend to a case where the Lawyer discovers information about a crime in progress or about to happen, or information that could be used to save somebody's life. I believe in those cases the lawyer is obligated to disclose such information.

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 4 Aug 2005, 09:35

i agree with that woman lawyer from judge john deed: everyone deserves a defence. then she went on to defend a man who killed a paedo in jail and got him off

Dead_Meat · 4 Aug 2005, 10:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmao

Well if i was an attouerny put into this case, i would probably recomend to my client pleading guilty then giving the police all the information he has on terroist plots, might get a lesser sentance.

The only 'lesser sentence' that should be applied in this case is a smaller calibre bullet.

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 4 Aug 2005, 18:32

which fanny neg repped me for mentioning judge john deed? at least have the balls to admit to it.