Royals do you work within the justice system mate?Royal24s wrote:That's actually very well put. You have more or less described it in very straightforward terms, but there's one understandable but quite big error which is the burden of proof.Fug1 wrote:So, for example; a murderer knows under Country x law, the punishment if found guilty is death by hanging.Royal24s wrote:Most people do plead not guilty to murder actually. Of course only know about the evidence from third party hearsay, and it's important that it's checked out by a Court, but I'm guessing it'll be about his state of mind at the material time.
Not just the possible claim that he was insane, but whether he actually intended her to die - maybe trying to reduce it to manslaughter .
Obviously we can all form an opinion, and of course it seems very unlikely that he's got an answer to any if this, but my point is that he and everyone else must have an opportunity to explain himself if he can before justice can be done.
The justice of the Lynch Mob is no justice at all .
The law is stating murder is unacceptable in Country x and the punishment of breaking that law is death by hanging.
The process of determining guilt probably starts with the Police suspecting a law has been broken, gathering evidence to support there suspicions and then over to the justice system if the Police believe that have sufficient evidence to convict.
They then gather evidence to present to a Judge and Jury in a manner that they hope would lead to a conviction.
Meanwhile, the suspect has at his disposal representation to prove his innocence; they will gather evidence to disprove the evidence the Police have gathered and ultimately prove there guy didn't in fact commit the crime.
A Jury will then deliberate on the evidential facts that they have available to them via evidence solely provided to them curtosy of both the defence and prosecuting sides, with the Judge acting as referee in this process.
If found guilty the Judge will then administer the punishment in accordance with the law. In this case hanging.
That sounds fair to me.
However, I think the only thing a defence lawyer can or should do is prove somebody is innocent, I don't think a defence lawyers job is to try and ensure a guilty man's freedom at the expense of justice.
Is that pretty much how it all works?
Again who advised Joe Cox killer to plead not guilty? I would certainly hope that advise didn't come from somebody that was there to prove his innocence of this crime. That's where my problem starts. You either did it or you didn't.
The defence need not prove anyone innocent - indeed there is no such verdict available.
The onus is upon the prosecution to prove them guilty - or fail to do so .
Hence he is " not guilty" as opposed to "innocent ", which might seem on the face of it to be the same,but is actually quite different.
In fact, the defence lawyer cannot defend a client whom he knows to be guilty, with the one exception that he may argue that the prosecution have failed to produce enough evidence to establish guilt - he cannot argue that the man didn't do it if he knows that he did.
That's different to believing him, of course. You haven't got to believe him, just represent his account to the Court in an articulate and legally correct manner.
If a lawyer declined clients or started forming opinions about guilt then there'd be no point in the Court being there, would there ?
It is a VERY important part of justice that no one can say that anyone was convicted only because they couldn't express themselves very well or didn't understand the proceedings , and so the defence is just as important as the prosecution in a just and transparent system.
Now, although the facts of the particular case under discussion here do seem conclusive on the face of it, these are the rules which apply to all cases, including for example people who are maliciously or wrongly accused of relatively minor and yet potentially very damaging wrongdoing. We can't have two sets of rules, and so we must follow them in all cases if we intend to maintain the credibility of the Law.
If so, can you please give me an idea of the amount of miscarriages of justice, either people being found guilty when not or flipped around?
Just interested to see from somebody that knows how common mistakes are in terms of verdict, what people are found guilty on (such as person a) got attacked by person b) in a bar, he sparked b out with 1 punch but b smacked his head on the corner of a table and nearly lost his life). I call that handbags in a boozar that at worst is ABH, however he is being charged with attempted murder.
People getting reduced sentencing due to drug abuse or issues of mental stability.
I'm hoping you will say the margin of error is tiny.