Oh, good grief. Not another struggle with someone who can't follow the logic of the thread.
When you complained that I made ‘sweeping’ assumptions, you were referring to my posting: “...You make sweeping, insulting generalisations on an issue you have no great experience of...” which is clearly an observation about you. Therefore my response was to your accusation that I made sweeping generalisations about you.
Separately, I also wrote comments about people who post in the forum. You had not previously criticised this as being a ‘sweeping’ comment.
So quote-mining the two different posts and trying to artificially generate mileage out of the incompatibility is – um – spurious to say the least.
I have much less of a problem with this than I do the death penalty in the first place - if you are dead, you have no need of your organs but some people who are alive may well do. The fact that your government killed you to get them is the unacceptable part.
Its not really worth noting, as it was simply a clear up exercise for laws that would never be used and had never been used for decades.Although the last person executed was in 1964 it is worth noting that the UK only abolished the death penalty for treason in 1998.
Its never as simple as that. What about helping end the suffering of a 90 year old dementia sufferer who asked you to help end their life when they still could? what about hitting someone with a car by accident when you have a blow out on a country road? what about a tired nurse missreading a prescription label and killing a patient? what if the family of someone who attacked you was killed as you defended yourself - and their surviving family is extremely rich and out for, what they think is, "justice"? what if 6 witnesses say you killed someone but it wasn't you, they just didnt like that you are black?
if we kill everyone who commited a serious crime they have no right of appeal, i don't know the numbers but appeals are successful all the time, a pardon after you are dead is scant consolation to you.
Is it not slightly hypocritical to say "killing is wrong" but then to advocate government sponsorship of it ?
I was going to say you'd quoted me out of context, but it's more a case of my badly constructed post.
Life for a life is too general for all the valid reasons you pointed out but I do think we are far too lenient on the worst offenders. What do you think would be a fair punishment for Ian Huntley? Clearly you don't think he should die, but a cosy single cell with all mod cons? It's wrong!
It's definitely not slightly hypocritical.
I don't really try and argue this case with anyone. If they do not believe that killing is wrong, regardless of the circumstances, then no amount of reasoning will change their view. Fortunately, society as a whole has civilised beyond the rather crude revenge mentality that was commonplace a few thousand years ago when the idea of 'an eye for an eye' was conceived.
When I posted I thought that was obvious. This is so abhorrent I think a bit more information is worthwhile. Falun Gong campaigners allege that the number of transplants carried out in China has significantly increased as a result of capital punishments carried out on Falun Gong members (Falun Gong became a banned group in China shortly after the authorities learned that it had a membership list longer than that of the Chinese Communist Party). Some of the recipients of organs from these executed 'criminals' are probably paying a lot of money for their replacement Livers, Corneas, Hearts, kidneys, Lungs etc. etc.
That's true. But since one of the offences it related to was treason I couldn't resist mentioning it while taking a shot at the treasonous politicians who promised us an EU referendum, treated the electorate like idiots, and then proceeded to ship out yet more British Sovereignty to Brussels. Anyway, there's another thread for that so there's no need for me to waffle on about the evils of the EU constitution here.
http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=18969
Swinging Bee is talking about opposing barristers, not judges and barristers, lunching together.There are no juries in trials where the defendant has pleaded guilty.The determination of guilt is the responsibility of the jury, not the barristers nor the judge.
Well, it doesn't really matter - since a) barristers do not lunch together mid-trial, as I said you will usually find them frantically preparing for the afternoon's session with instructing solicitor(s) and lay client(s); and b) it would be pointless for barristers to try and rig the trial because i) witnesses ii) the judge and most of all iii) the jury would all be prone to stick a spanner in the works.
So you are saying that barristers never have time for lunch?
Actually the outcome of the trial is decided in the opening seconds, so what Swinging Bee said, rang a bell with me.
There are still 2 barristers needed to put the case before the judge, who then decides on the punishment.
If the defendant's barrister is of a mind (he knows he's on a loosing wicket) - he could refrain from pleading the defendant's case too strongly as a favour to the proscecution barrister.
Thus when he needs a favour at some other time, he can call that one in.
No, sweety; I told you what they are doing over lunch. A sandwich and a coffee are part of the event.
Wholly untrue. Either the outcome is an inevitable consequence of the pre-trial process, or it will be reasonably finely balanced.Actually the outcome of the trial is decided in the opening seconds, so what Swinging Bee said, rang a bell with me.
Well...yeah -There are still 2 barristers needed to put the case before the judge, who then decides on the punishment.
Good grief, you live in a simplistic world, don't you?If the defendant's barrister is of a mind (he knows he's on a loosing wicket) - he could refrain from pleading the defendant's case too strongly as a favour to the proscecution barrister.
Let me just explain one way in which your imaginary situation is ridiculous. If the defending barrister is on a losing wicket, this will be something that is hopelessly obvious to the prosecution. Why on earth would the prosecuting barrister agree to treat this 'as a favour', when it was merely Sybil Fawlty's specialist Mastermind subject?
I have seen opposing council lunching together mid trial in a watering hole 500 yards from the court, where I too have been!...I have overheard conversations.... Yes juries decide the outcome based on the evidence provided by the repective barristers. We didn't all come down with the last drop of rain you know!
OK, I give up.
There's no such thing as a fair trial because it's all a stitch up between lawyers and judges. This is done because they all want everyone's confidence in the legal system to be irretrievably undermined so that...
um...
... so that they will benefit financially from...er...
...from some unspecified finacially beneficial...um...outcome of an untrustworthy legal system where everything is stitched up...by the lawyers and judges.
Nobody's there trying to do the best for their clients, or for the protection of society as a whole...how ridiculous is that!
By losing wicket i mean that the defendant has already pleaded guilty, so the procecution is going to win - which is, of courseWell there are various outcomes when the judge sentances a defendant - as I'm sure you know.something that is hopelessly obvious to the prosecution. Why on earth would the prosecuting barrister agree to treat this 'as a favour'
Custodial and non custodial being the significant differences.
So a barrister may talk in a half hearted manner and the defendant recieves a custodial sentance. This result is preferable for the procecution barrister, than if the defendant had been let of with a non-custodial sentance.
Would you agree?
Now, the procecution barrister owes the defending barrister a favour some time in the future.
I'm not saying there arn't some moral barristers around. Some do pro bona work.
Others are paid vast sums of money to defend people, and even though they know the defendant is guilty will put their all into the case for the career enhancement it will bring.
Barristers defending people on legal aid are overstretched and only get to meet the defendant and read through the case just before going into court.
Is this a fair Justice System?
Last edited by Astro; 30th-November-2009 at 05:09 PM.
I'm beginning to understand how Hercules must have felt when he battled the Hydra...
...there are so many batty delusions here that I just can't deal with them..
For Sheena
Well, the one you describe certainly is NOT, but then, it only marginally overlaps with reality.
Er, no – absolutely not. You are thinking of the US, where the career prospects of prosecutors depends very much on the sentence that is imposed. The District Attorneys are elected; therefore they tend to favour (for promotion, assignment of high-profile cases, etc.) prosecutors who get the best results – conviction plus heavy sentences. The prosecutors who are favoured in this way will get promoted, earn better money, can stand for election in due course, and so forth. In this country, for very good reasons, the Bar Counsel very much stands aloof from the questions of measuring success by conviction rate, and even more strongly from sentencing results. Prosecution counsel is not in the least interested in what sentences are handed down – except in the rather technical sense of advising the judge as to what is set out in statute and what guidelines apply, and pointing out which, if any, aggravating factors are to be taken into account. Defence counsel will of course point out all the mitigating factors he can think of.By losing wicket I mean that the defendant has already pleaded guilty, so the prosecution is going to win - which is, of course. Well there are various outcomes when the judge sentences a defendant - as I'm sure you know.
Custodial and non custodial being the significant differences.
So a barrister may talk in a half hearted manner and the defendant receives a custodial sentence. This result is preferable for the prosecution barrister, than if the defendant had been let off with a non-custodial sentence.
Would you agree?
Things may be changing, I will admit. The CPS now employs a larger number of barristers, whereas it used to rely almost wholly on instructing independent counsel. Some of those employed prosecutors have offices in police stations, in order to be able to give instant advice to the investigating team. This is still somewhat experimental, however.
Oh, well, very grateful I’m sure.I'm not saying there aren’t some moral barristers around.
(Yeah, you have to spell properly, sweetie. Otherwise I can’t do the joke.)Some do pro bono work.
That’s right, and some do pro Sting work, or pro Paul McCartney work...
I’ve said this before. It is an absolutely essential foundation of criminal law (and indeed civil law) that it is the trier of fact that must determine guilt or not. The jury, or the magistrate bench. It is imperative that lawyers do not and are not invited to substitute their own opinions for those of the proper tribunal. Therefore no lawyer is required to make a determination as to whether his client is guilty or not, still less to act on that determination. To do so usurps a function which properly belongs elsewhere.Others are paid vast sums of money to defend people, and even though they know the defendant is guilty
It is, of course, perfectly common for lawyers (solicitor and barrister) to form a conclusion as to the guilt of their client. Difficult not to. But that is not KNOWLEDGE. And so counsel may and should leave the determination of guilt or otherwise to the tribunal.
Where a barrister does in fact know of his client’s guilt, he is ethically prevented from advancing to the court any argument to the effect that the client is NOT guilty. He is restricted to testing the evidence of the witnesses and suggesting that they are mistaken. He can say “I put it to you that you cannot be certain that it was my client” or “...that you did not in fact see my client”. He cannot say “My client was not there, was he?” still less “My client is innocent, therefore it cannot have been him that you saw.”
This happens both in criminal trials and civil trials. It all depends on the situation. The more serious the charges, the more complex the evidence, the more numerous the witnesses - the more likely that counsel will be involved at an earlier stage. Also, it is not often that defence counsel turns up and is briefed there and then – unless it is a bail application or similar. Prosecution counsel is frequently a total stranger to the case – this is because of the inefficiency of the CPS.Barristers defending people on legal aid are overstretched and only get to meet the defendant and read through the case just before going into court.
Please try not to come to solid, unshakeable convictions on the basis of television programs. For example, enormous numbers of Brits labour under the misapprehension that judges have gavels. Only auctioneers have gavels in this country; however, TV directors ignore this fact of life because they also labour under a misapprehension – which is that a court without a gavel is less dramatic than a court with a gavel.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks