What are your opinions of defence lawyers?

[-]

DoctorWhofan789eywim@reddit

Every defence barrister would quit on the spot and the justice system would fall apart. It's quite impressive but that is the stupidest thing I've read on the internet this week.

Reply

[-]

vipros42@reddit

It's even stupider than the post I saw where someone said if the world was ending their last meal would be a Domino's deep pan Hawaiian, all of which are among the worst choices for a pizza.

Reply

[-]

DoctorWhofan789eywim@reddit

I love the idea that people think Dominos would be delivering in a apocalypse.

Reply

[-]

Puzzled-Job9556@reddit

I think they're abhorrent and their personal details should be made public.

Reply

[-]

Visual-Sand3718@reddit (OP)

Why do you think this? I really can’t wrap my head around this train of thought. A quick glance through the rest of the comments will tell you why they’re so important.

Reply

[-]

I think if you can represent someone accused (especially when you know they are guilty) of some of the worst crimes possible, you are scum. I think their personal details should be made public for the potential of dealing with the consequences of their actions. I also understand this is never going to happen and why they are needed. This is just hypothetical.

Reply

[-]

Oxblood_Derbies@reddit

So if you yourself were accused of a crime by the state, accused of something like child abuse or murder, how would you like the procedure to go? If one type of person didn't have a right to a fair trial, then no one does. The system cannot function.

Reply

[-]

Puzzled-Job9556@reddit

I wouldn't be in the position to need one. >The system cannot function. I'm aware of this. It doesn't change my opinion in that I find defence lawyers morally reprehensible.

Reply

[-]

Oxblood_Derbies@reddit

That's avoiding the question, you absolutely might be in a position where the government accuses of a crime, you can't control that. Every innocent person taken to court would have believed the same thing. If you refuse to examine that part of the question, you're willfully ignoring the essential and moral role defence lawyers play in the system.

Reply

[-]

Puzzled-Job9556@reddit

I will not be in a position to need one. I understand their role, I just find them morally reprehensible. Asking me the same question multiple times, in various ways, isn't going to change that.

Reply

[-]

paulmclaughlin@reddit

Let's say for the sake of argument that the law society decides to sue you for libel because of your posts. How are you going to deal with that?

Reply

[-]

Fantastic-Pear6241@reddit

Amazing you appear to lack complete cognitive ability and empathy.

Reply

[-]

Oxblood_Derbies@reddit

Okay, would you mind explaining how you will never be in the position to need a defence lawyer? I can see how you might believe this, or ensure you live your life in a way that its very unlikely, but do you truly believe the goverment never accuses anyone innocent of a crime? Or that you can live your life in such a way to be completely immune from false accusation?

Reply

[-]

peppermint_aero@reddit

Don't bother. This person doesn't believe in the rule of law, hence their desire for people doing their jobs to face vigilante mobs.

Reply

[-]

Oxblood_Derbies@reddit

They can believe what they want but they should have the guts to defend their position.

Reply

[-]

Witty_Entry9120@reddit

I think you're being slippery with your words to be fair. You "understand their role". Thanks - we all understand their role. Do you agree that the role should exist, morally? Would you take it away if you could?

Reply

[-]

Neither_Process_7847@reddit

So in your mind being accused of a crime means you are automatically guilty and should just be punished without a right to defend yourself? I think you killed someone and demand your execution -how dare you deny it,..

Reply

[-]

Puzzled-Job9556@reddit

Not sure where you have got that from.

Reply

[-]

Neither_Process_7847@reddit

Your belief that criminal defence is morally indefensible, just possibly?

Reply

[-]

Visual-Sand3718@reddit (OP)

How would you not be in the position to need one? Sorry but your comment is coming across as extremely naive. When accused and arrested the average person will be in a state of shock, will not have an understanding of how the criminal justice system works and importantly will have a low understanding of wording used in court. Defense lawyers are important for a variety of reasons, an important one like the above comment is in the case of false accusations.

Reply

[-]

Puzzled-Job9556@reddit

>How would you not be in the position to need one? By not committing crime...

Reply

[-]

Visual-Sand3718@reddit (OP)

Never heard of false accusations?

Reply

[-]

Puzzled-Job9556@reddit

Ever heard of evidence...

Reply

[-]

hdhxuxufxufufiffif@reddit

Ever heard of the Horizon Scandal? The Birmingham Six? Peter Sullivan? Stefan Kiszko? Etc etc?

Reply

[-]

Oxblood_Derbies@reddit

Who adduces that evidence at court or proves that there isn't any? Come on, be honest with yourself.

Reply

[-]

Dorda@reddit

Who made that comment is an imbecile

Reply

[-]

ATSOAS87@reddit

This would lead to a lot of innocent people going to jail as no one would want to also go to jail if it goes wrong. Andrew Malkinson spent 17 years in jail after a wrongful conviction. And he's 1 of many

Reply

[-]

Uncle_Zardoz@reddit

People love a bit of performative dudgeon, they'll give it the "Hang 'em, flog 'em, shoot 'em!" until someone they know is in trouble then it's all "But in this one very special and different case..." Rancid hypocrisy. Even the most obviously guilty murderers and rapists should be fairly tried and properly represented.

Reply

[-]

peppermint_aero@reddit

Everyone's for calling for LAW AND ORDER until they get a speeding ticket

Reply

[-]

smoulderstoat@reddit

This is the stupidest idea since the Archduke Franz Ferdinand asked his missus if she fancied a weekend in Sarajevo.

Reply

[-]

phatboi23@reddit

> This is the stupidest idea since the Archduke Franz Ferdinand asked his missus if she fancied a weekend in Sarajevo. fuck me that's a good one hahaha

Reply

[-]

Graeme-L@reddit

Barristers in the UK follow the cab rank rule. They are required to take on any client that approaches them as long as they are available and are competent in the required area of law.

Reply

[-]

11Kram@reddit

The cab rank rule reminds me of a story in the obituary of a highly successful barrister who could charge what he wanted, and did. He was arguing a position in front of five eminent judges in the appeal court. One said: ‘Mr Smith, you were before us yesterday arguing the opposite side of this point.’ He replied: ‘My lords, I am merely a taxi for hire.’ One of the judges then murmured: ‘More a limousine, Mr Smith.’

Reply

[-]

escapingfromelba@reddit

In theory true, in reality no so. Plenty fight certain types of case.

Reply

[-]

DMF_47@reddit

That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard, quite frankly

Reply

[-]

TheDawiWhisperer@reddit

Yeah it's deffo up there.

Reply

[-]

peppermint_aero@reddit

One of my favourites which lives in my head rent free from 2016 was "and who 'elects' these 'Members of the European Parliament', eh? Certainly not the citizens of the member states!" That's exactly who elects them.

Reply

[-]

DMF_47@reddit

It really is quite mental that there are people who hold these beliefs. The whole justice system would collapse in a matter of days

Reply

[-]

Lynvor@reddit

I agree with their existence in principle but that doesn't mean I have to like them.

Reply

[-]

dean012347@reddit

Be honest have you been reading daily mail comments

Reply

[-]

DigitalHoweitat@reddit

We should, on the basis of one case, abolish jury trial and bring back trial by ordeal. For you know, those "special cases". Special being whatever the frothing tabloids and Russian-funded "populist/patriotic" media demand.

Reply

[-]

Spiritual_Smell4744@reddit

Or just go for trial by media. Let the daily mail decide who's guilty, and we hang everyone they don't like.

Reply

[-]

pelvviber@reddit

And don't forget that the accused probably causes cancer too!

Reply

[-]

Fantastic-Pear6241@reddit

Was this social media a Facebook page by any chance. I swear Facebook has done more to damage the collective intelligence of the average Brit than almost anything else

Reply

[-]

Visual-Sand3718@reddit (OP)

Yep!

Reply

[-]

BusyBeeBridgette@reddit

What in the world is this? I don't think any sane individual would think a Solicitor should face jail time for the decision of the jury lol.

Reply

[-]

Visual-Sand3718@reddit (OP)

I was so shocked to see someone saying that because it just doesn’t make sense to me. Defence lawyers are so important for a variety of reasons and blaming them for someone else’s actions makes 0 sense.

Reply

[-]

Icy_Place_5785@reddit

Would love to see a link if you have a chance - I’d love to take them apart haha. I worked for a prosecutor and as slimy as the accused’s defence often seemed to be, we were politely reminded by our higher-ups that ensuring the law is appropriately and justly applied to the guilty is arguably one of the purest forms of law there can be.

Reply

[-]

Southern-Orchid-1786@reddit

And remember people with such stupidity can serve on the jury

Reply

[-]

-Rhymenocerous-@reddit

IQ tests and psychological profile tests should be performed before someone sits on a jury imo 🫠

Reply

[-]

cappsy04@reddit

Facebook tends not to be a place of rational opinions.

Reply

[-]

Neither_Process_7847@reddit

Just read the comments here, sadly...

Reply

[-]

Opposite_Radio9388@reddit

I don't think they're insane, they're just not at all smart or thoughtful.

Reply

[-]

Silver-Article9183@reddit

Generally positive. As you say the role of the defense isn't to get a client off, it's to ensure a fair trial is had, evidence stands up to scrutiny etc. However, I have met and talked to some real life defence solicitors in my time. Some of them were completely amoral.

Reply

[-]

SomeHSomeE@reddit

I mean "technicalities" usually mean the police or prosecution have failed to follow a correct process. These processes are important and the foundation of our fair justice system. It's literally a defence solicitor's job to ensure fair process has been followed. They should be proud if they've identified it hasn't and it was significant enough to achieve an acquittal. If this wasn't the case then these processes are meaningless and we quickly end up in a justice system of dirty tricks and lies.

Reply

[-]

Ashbuck200@reddit

Mostly bent

Reply

[-]

pockkler@reddit

The real problem with social media is insane opinions like that are shared and given consideration. I think society was better when that sort of pish was just ignored in the pub.

Reply

[-]

StuartHunt@reddit

Defence solicitors are there to ensure that people aren't railroaded by the prosecution. They're also there to offer rebuttals to evidence, showing that it could have an alternative meaning and not simply point to the defendants guilt. How tf would anyone think that they're liable for the crimes commited by their clients.

Reply

[-]

Oxblood_Derbies@reddit

The point about not being railroaded is key. It's about keeping the government honest (i know, i know...) by ensuring they have to meet the standards for procecution.

Reply

[-]

CoastHefty6373@reddit

If we did that nobody would become a defense lawyer lmao.

Reply

[-]

Mav_Learns_CS@reddit

They’re doing a job, that is literally the end of it

Reply

[-]

zephyrthewonderdog@reddit

Prosecutors and defence often know each other. They will argue in court all day long then sometimes go for drinks. They are just doing a job. I’ve also seen defence lawyers ‘sabotaging’ their own clients by allowing them to speak. They knew they were a fucking idiot, who wouldn’t listen to their advice, and let them ramble on. Everyone knew what was happening apart from the defendant who thought he was being clever. Always good for a laugh when ‘against my wishes my client would like to address the court your honour’. Big sigh and sits down looking at his watch.

Reply

[-]

Evening-Tomatillo-47@reddit

Was that comment made by a cerrtain president? Sounds insane enough. Representation is needed on both sides, I know what it's like to have a "trial" whiz by in front of me with no defence

Reply

[-]

Visual-Sand3718@reddit (OP)

It does sound like something he’d say which is ironic since he’s needed defence lawyers so many times lmao

Reply

[-]

Shriven@reddit

People don't really specialise in defence only - generally they just do whatever job is in front of them, be that prosecution or defence. Their job is to ensure a fair trial. This is really bloody important.

Reply

[-]

Success_With_Lettuce@reddit

Hey Donnie! How’s the bruise?

Reply

[-]

giganticturnip@reddit

If you don't have defence, then what have you got? Someone just makes an accusation and you jail the accused whether they did it or not?

Reply

[-]

TomatoMiserable3043@reddit

Solicitors are there to facilitate various legal rights. They don't (usually) bear any responsibility for the crimes of their clients. Everyone has the right to legal representation, regardless of perceived guilt. If this were to happen then you would very quickly run out of solicitors who were willing to defend people, and courts would begin to draw adverse inferences (*"They must be guilty!"*) in cases where defence representation was refused. The whole idea stinks and simply shits all over the idea of a fair trial and equal representation.

Reply

[-]

apeliott@reddit

I see defence lawyers as being there to protect us from the government just as much as they protect criminals against prosecution.

Reply

[-]

Empty_Bell_1942@reddit

I rate them more highly than immigration lawyers!

Reply

[-]

Danglyweed@reddit

I was just on jury duty. The defence lawyer was weirdly overly smiley with absolutely everyone, then the accused steps in the dock, not a smidgen of a smile. Of course i google him right after i left after the verdict, shes been his defence for years.

Reply

[-]

On_The_Blindside@reddit

Without a zealous defence there is no justice. There's always people with smoother than average brains that think the defence are standing in the way of justice, but they are categorically wrong.

Reply

[-]

Kyber92@reddit

Like, obviously not. There wouldn't be any defence lawyers left after like 3 years.

Reply

[-]

BarnacleExpressor@reddit

You're spot on, the comment you saw is a brain-dead take from someone totally ignorant of how the justice system works.

Reply

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!** - When replying to submission/post please **make genuine efforts to answer the question given**. Please no jokes, judgements, etc. If a post is marked 'Serious Answers Only' **you may receive a ban for violating this rule**. - **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on. - This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit! Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Reply

Reply to Post

75 Comments