6 ms·

This rings true in the UK as well. With mainstream publications and members of government attacking “lefty lawyers” and “unelected judges” simply for doing thei

This rings true in the UK as well. With mainstream publications and members of government attacking “lefty lawyers” and “unelected judges” simply for doing their job, which is to uphold the law, we need to take the rhetoric we apply to these situations seriously. There need to be serious consequences for credible threats of violence against people, even when made by people in the public sphere. Furthermore, I hear a lot of people say things like “how can lawyers defend people who do such horrible things”. I think it is an important part of our education to understand civics, and why we are entitled to a defence, rather than just subjected to the whims of an inquisition. Having a well-resourced defence for alleged criminals (and other legal aid in civil cases) means that we can be certain as a society that we get the right person for crimes, and ensures the system runs as intended.

throwaways885 6y ago
Indeed. I'll be honest in saying that I do think the so called "lefty lawyers" are usually defending people most don't like (e.g. foreign criminals), but I also hate the government's characterisation of the lawyers themselves. Like freedom of speech, people have a right to a defence. In fact, part of having a strong legal system is the fact that it optimises for false negatives. Better to let 100 criminals go free than one person unjustly imprisoned.
- noodlesUK 6y ago
  Yes, you’re right, they are (the solicitors) often defending people that are not well-liked. However, in a lot of cases, the government is losing the cases, as the govt is violating the law. Rather than attacking the process, the govt is in a position to change the law if it wants to. A side note. Barristers in the UK do not choose their clients. There’s what’s called the “cab-rank rule”, which says that if a barrister is instructed on a case they are sufficiently competent in, they must take the case without prejudice.
dane-pgp 6y ago
> “how can lawyers defend people who do such horrible things” It's perhaps worth noting that (in the UK at least), that should never happen, at least in the sense of a defence lawyer trying to get a "not guilty" verdict for a defendant they know is guilty: "It's obviously unethical and illegal for a lawyer to deceive a court knowingly. If my client tells me he's guilty, I can't say he's innocent in court. I cannot call him to give evidence that I know is false or I would be a party to his perjury."[0] Of course I'm sure it does happen all the time, but you don't need to justify a system where lawyers are lying for the benefit of their client, because that's not the system we are meant to have. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/jan/07/workandcareers.careers4 https://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/jan/07/workandcareers...
- noodlesUK 6y ago
  Correct. Lawyers are not allowed to raise an argument that is known to them to be false. If a lawyer is told by their client that they did it, the only defence that they can legitimately raise is if there were some mitigating circumstance.
  - staticman2 6y ago
    Not true they can say the prosecutor has provided no reliable evidence their client is guilty so the client should go free.
fmajid 6y ago
Don't forget Jo Cox.

throwaways885 6y ago

Indeed. I'll be honest in saying that I do think the so called "lefty lawyers" are usually defending people most don't like (e.g. foreign criminals), but I also hate the government's characterisation of the lawyers themselves. Like freedom of speech, people have a right to a defence. In fact, part of having a strong legal system is the fact that it optimises for false negatives. Better to let 100 criminals go free than one person unjustly imprisoned.

noodlesUK 6y ago
Yes, you’re right, they are (the solicitors) often defending people that are not well-liked. However, in a lot of cases, the government is losing the cases, as the govt is violating the law. Rather than attacking the process, the govt is in a position to change the law if it wants to. A side note. Barristers in the UK do not choose their clients. There’s what’s called the “cab-rank rule”, which says that if a barrister is instructed on a case they are sufficiently competent in, they must take the case without prejudice.

dane-pgp 6y ago

> “how can lawyers defend people who do such horrible things” It's perhaps worth noting that (in the UK at least), that should never happen, at least in the sense of a defence lawyer trying to get a "not guilty" verdict for a defendant they know is guilty: "It's obviously unethical and illegal for a lawyer to deceive a court knowingly. If my client tells me he's guilty, I can't say he's innocent in court. I cannot call him to give evidence that I know is false or I would be a party to his perjury."[0] Of course I'm sure it does happen all the time, but you don't need to justify a system where lawyers are lying for the benefit of their client, because that's not the system we are meant to have. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/jan/07/workandcareers.careers4 https://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/jan/07/workandcareers...

noodlesUK 6y ago
Correct. Lawyers are not allowed to raise an argument that is known to them to be false. If a lawyer is told by their client that they did it, the only defence that they can legitimately raise is if there were some mitigating circumstance.
- staticman2 6y ago
  Not true they can say the prosecutor has provided no reliable evidence their client is guilty so the client should go free.

fmajid 6y ago

Don't forget Jo Cox.