Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Suspects and their defense team
Just a question I've been thinknig about a lot....
If say there's a crime committed, ie- a murder, and the suspects are caught/rounded up and there's almost no doubt that they are somehow involved, why then are they handed over defence lawyers who can help them with their story or help them plead insanity etc etc, any loophole to get them out of it....
Wouldn't it be better if those suspects were given lawyers from the prosecuting side, to give advice/find out more etc. as that way, there would be no way the suspects could change their story or escape the system through a loophole?
Does this make a little bit of sense, I hope so....!
If say there's a crime committed, ie- a murder, and the suspects are caught/rounded up and there's almost no doubt that they are somehow involved, why then are they handed over defence lawyers who can help them with their story or help them plead insanity etc etc, any loophole to get them out of it....
Wouldn't it be better if those suspects were given lawyers from the prosecuting side, to give advice/find out more etc. as that way, there would be no way the suspects could change their story or escape the system through a loophole?
Does this make a little bit of sense, I hope so....!
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by blu3wave. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You're innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Your defence lawyer is there to put your case across to balance the evidence. "Somehow involved" is not good enough. How many mistakes have been made by the police in prior cases with so-called evidence or lack of it. Stephen Lawrence, Jill Dando etc.................
Not splitting hairs Dassie, but...
Stephen Lawrence - no prosecution was brought by the police/CPS - a private prosecution was brought (due to very poor legal advice) and the suspects found not guilty due to the lack of evidence.
Jill Dando - I thought the appeal was still going being - I didn't know he'd been found not guilty - and anyway, it was a jury - after hearing from the defense and prosection - who decided he was guilty at the time
On the genereal subject though, a suspect deserve representation - it's when a solicitor/barrister knows that teh suspect is guilty and tries to prove them not guilty that there's an issue. general rule of thumb... if the defense is attacking the procedures, processes and the witnesses themselves whilst not really mentionning the actual evidence being presented, it's because the evidence is there and they don't want the jury to dwell on it.
Stephen Lawrence - no prosecution was brought by the police/CPS - a private prosecution was brought (due to very poor legal advice) and the suspects found not guilty due to the lack of evidence.
Jill Dando - I thought the appeal was still going being - I didn't know he'd been found not guilty - and anyway, it was a jury - after hearing from the defense and prosection - who decided he was guilty at the time
On the genereal subject though, a suspect deserve representation - it's when a solicitor/barrister knows that teh suspect is guilty and tries to prove them not guilty that there's an issue. general rule of thumb... if the defense is attacking the procedures, processes and the witnesses themselves whilst not really mentionning the actual evidence being presented, it's because the evidence is there and they don't want the jury to dwell on it.
The main reason for the situation you describe is that Britain operates what is known as an �adversarial� justice system.
The founding principle of this system is firstly that defendants are innocent and it is the prosecution�s job to put before the tribunal (either a bench of magistrates or a jury) sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. The defendant does not have to say anything, but if he does not respond to the evidence provided by the prosecution, the tribunal has only one version of events on which to pass a judgement.
This is an admirable system but it has a number of shortcomings which sometimes means the truth remains hidden. The defendant cannot be forced to say anything at all, but if he does give evidence he can only be examined on that evidence � not on anything else. Skilful advocates manage to conceal the truth without the defendant actually having to tell lies.
Other countries operate an �inquisitorial� system where the judge or magistrate can ask questions of the defendant on anything he wishes, can draw assumptions from silence, and are more able to uncover the truth.
The difficulty with your proposition �...there�s almost no doubt that they are somehow involved� is arranging for that decision to be taken. As CORBYLOON says, who makes such a decision? Of course, the prosecutors believe the defendant was �somehow involved� or they would not be prosecuting. So they (or the police) are hardly best placed to decide.
The system we use is not perfect. There are sometimes acquittals of the guilty and sometimes convictions of the innocent. However, the sort of �pre-trial trial� you advocate is not really a step forward. Evidence can only be considered by an impartial tribunal, and our system already provides for that to be done.
The founding principle of this system is firstly that defendants are innocent and it is the prosecution�s job to put before the tribunal (either a bench of magistrates or a jury) sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. The defendant does not have to say anything, but if he does not respond to the evidence provided by the prosecution, the tribunal has only one version of events on which to pass a judgement.
This is an admirable system but it has a number of shortcomings which sometimes means the truth remains hidden. The defendant cannot be forced to say anything at all, but if he does give evidence he can only be examined on that evidence � not on anything else. Skilful advocates manage to conceal the truth without the defendant actually having to tell lies.
Other countries operate an �inquisitorial� system where the judge or magistrate can ask questions of the defendant on anything he wishes, can draw assumptions from silence, and are more able to uncover the truth.
The difficulty with your proposition �...there�s almost no doubt that they are somehow involved� is arranging for that decision to be taken. As CORBYLOON says, who makes such a decision? Of course, the prosecutors believe the defendant was �somehow involved� or they would not be prosecuting. So they (or the police) are hardly best placed to decide.
The system we use is not perfect. There are sometimes acquittals of the guilty and sometimes convictions of the innocent. However, the sort of �pre-trial trial� you advocate is not really a step forward. Evidence can only be considered by an impartial tribunal, and our system already provides for that to be done.
1 to 9 of 9
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.