LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksbut that's not how the uk court procedural system worksOriginally Posted by malfunction
but that's not how the uk court procedural system works
No hard evidence (obviously?) - only observations. As you say it isn't the job of either side to pass judgement - as I understand it both sides are supposed to do the best to represent their client (the defendants or the crown in this case) regardless of what they personally believe. There's still a conflict though - I wouldn't want someone defending me that didn't believe in my innocence and I'm sure you'd feel the same. I (perhaps cynically) assume therefore that there are times when the prosecution doesn't believe someone is guilty but goes through the motions anyway. Again from observations the solicitors I have seen only really seem to care about how they are doing case / career / money wise and not really about the case itself as such - they are after all professional advocates - paid to win 'arguments' whether they care about the argument itself or which side is correct.
Personally, if I ever wind up needing a defence lawyer, I'd prefer an advocate that believed me, but I wouldn't expect it. I'd expect one that was quite capable of believing that most of his clients claimed to be innocent (because I'd bet a lot do) whether they were or not, and that did his job successfully regardless of his personal belief. In other words, I'd rather have a top brief that won even if he thought I was guilty than a nice bloke that believed in my innocence but lost anyway.
I think we're saying the same thing in different ways - I don't expect it to be necessary for either side to believe they are on the morally correct side - but then IMO that's one of the big reasons why people don't like lawyers / solicitors. I'd still prefer a top brief and belief to go with it. My own job sometimes makes me do things I don't particularly believe are in everyone's best interests and I find it quite wearing at times (not that in my case it's a legal or moral issue as such). But then that's why I'd never make a good solicitor, estate agent or sales person in general.Personally, if I ever wind up needing a defence lawyer, I'd prefer an advocate that believed me, but I wouldn't expect it. I'd expect one that was quite capable of believing that most of his clients claimed to be innocent (because I'd bet a lot do) whether they were or not, and that did his job successfully regardless of his personal belief. In other words, I'd rather have a top brief that won even if he thought I was guilty than a nice bloke that believed in my innocence but lost anyway.
Your assumption in your statments is a solicitor that believes in your innocence will make more of an effort on your case rather than money - dont think this assumption is correct.
there is a reason they do not get emotionally attached, just like other jobs (e.g. doctor, police officer).
Am I the only one who thinks he should be able to rape her nowas disturbing as it sounds it does make some sort of sense
And how come people that are guilty dont have to pay and he does!?I wholeheartedly agree. Sukh - that only 'makes sense' if your a blinking rapist - a scum one step up from a pedophile.
Anyway..
This does seem might daft - if only on principle.
Last edited by dangel; 01-02-2008 at 05:39 PM.
Crosshair VIII Hero (WIFI), 3900x, 32GB DDR4, Many SSDs, EVGA FTW3 3090, Ethoo 719
I concede the point and revise my statement:
If I'm ever in the situation to need legal defense I'd like a hot shot who's dedicated to winning my case regardless of their personal beliefs about my innocence or guilt. Emotively (?) / emotionally I'd still prefer the warm fuzzy feeling of being believed but at that point all I'd really care about is not being convicted.
Which is kinda in line with what I originally said in that I don't expect the CPS to care about justice being done (it might be the overall aim but on a case / individual basis I think they only care about winning - 'return on investment' and career prospects)
Seconded / thirded (?)
If anyone wanted to go down the "an eye for an eye" route then the appropriate punishment would be to imprison and publicly shame her surely? I would also question her mental health and suggest that she may need help not imprisonment but I do think she should be tried and punished for what she did (again assuming she did do so - I haven't checked the facts of the case).
Or she should be made to pay the compensation.
Why should the taxpayer pick up the bill when it was her lies that put him behind bars?
He deserves every penny of the compensation and I think it's disgusting that they're clawing back money on the grounds of food and accomodation, but I think she should be given the entire bill and should be made to pay it back to the government out of her wages until it's piad off (with interest of course)
Oh, and Sukh? Get help. Please
_____________________________________
It's quite ridiculous that a prisoner of any description should have to pay for food and lodgings in Her Majestys prisons, regardless of whether the inmate is guilty or not. It's a travesty of justice only to be expected from a Labour government.
If he is charged this money it should be reimbursed with an additional payment to his compensation, and this evil woman should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
I rest my case.
Stupid law system in this country. What is happening to 'Great Britain?' It is going down the swanny.
If that guy was a muslim he would have been given more money etc etc!!
Gee, what a sad state of affairs. Fancy being charged for a prison stay when the guy was innocent!!!
_____________________________________________________________________
Blame our wonderful Labour government for all the ills that our society is now suffering, and then watch the Ostriches go to the polls in the next General Election and vote them in again.
The British people have no-one else to blame but themseves for the terrible mess the UK is in. They never learn from the lessons of history.
Last edited by Jimmy.H; 02-02-2008 at 12:54 AM. Reason: Correction.
I think you will find that it will make no difference whichever party was in power. Its one bunch of idiots after another doing for the country. Heyho, thats democracy for you! At least we have our democracy rather than having the same thing happening but with a dictator or other regime doing the same.
If they were good at what they are supposed to do they would be working in the private sector earning large amounts of money.
Not around too often!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They don't need to be earning large amounts of money while we, the mugs, are paying them their wages, and allowances, not to mention their expenses, plus their rake off from unregistered donations.
There's none so blind as the voting public!
They would still earn by magnitudes more in buisness. Hell, I earn nearly as much as an MP and I am a lowly minion in my organisation.
Not around too often!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
