h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: DEFENCE LAWYERS - HOW THEY CAN REPRESENT THE GUILTY - A31320965
Author: courteousoptimist - U10815507

I would hope this Entry will allay some fears and prejudices shared by the majority of the population where adversarial justice systems prevail e.g. the UK. By including a personal and fictitious example of the role and duties of defence lawyers I hope the Entry has well illustrated its intention

Traveller in Time luckily not known with the subject
"Think it is a fine entry, fully capable of becoming Edited.

Some points however, no first person, unless there is no other way to tell a story:
>>I am reminded of a case twenty years ago . . .

can easily be transformed into:
>There was a case several years ago . . .

Do not use all capitals, rule of thumb is: words in the title longer then six characters get a leading capital.
Should be something like 'Defence Lawyers - how to Represent the Guilty'

Have a read at < <./>SubEditors-Style</.> > and < Writing-Guidelines > "

A good start to an entry, however you have portrayed Barristers in the light in which I am sure they would all like to be seen - as a Perry Mason-like breed, searching relentlessly after the truth.

The simple reality is that the job of a defence barrister is to do his or her utmost to persuade a jury to return a non-guilty verdict, or at least a guilty verdict on a lesser charge.

That is what they are (very well) paid to do, using *any* means within the legal system. The result is that barristers are not 'seekers after the truth'; they will use any loophole, technicality or other legal device to get their client off, even if that results in a clear miscarriage of justice.

Do not portray defence barristers as guardians of the truth. You must also state the case for the prosecution - they are 'guns for hire', the same as any other profession.

Both in the UK and the US, there exists the finest legal system money can buy.

This was an attempt to portray the position from the Defence perspective hence no analysis of the prosecution. Not all barristers are well paid - only the upper strata. The local barristers regularly appear in Magistrates courts for £250 per day - I know I pay them!

Glad you think we and USA have the best legal systems - I will go to work with less self doubt on Monday!

From the title of this entry I was expecting a moral defence argument for why barristers can and should represent a guilty client. It is right that all defendants, whether guilty or not, should have their case correctly and vigorously laid before the court for them by a barrister.

Your entry however does not argue this position. Instead, it shows, by means of reference to two specific cases, how by not taking the evidence at face value, two innocent defendants were not falsely convicted. That is fine, but it is a narrow view of the subject.

<>. It is a well-established principle that barristers *never* ask the client if he or she is guilty - the answer may not be convenient.

What I think this entry fails to recognise is that it is not justice that is served in the courts, but the process of justice appearing to be done. Barristers are there first and foremost to serve their clients, not to see that justice is done.

Too many guilty people walk free from courts as a result of the defence having the financial means to employ a better barrister than the one appearing for the prosecution.

Actually I believe the phrase - 'the finest legal system money can buy' - refers to the inequality in the law whereby rich people can afford expensive solictors to find legal loopholes and express eloquently the case for the defense, poor people are stuck with someone doing their year's experience.

I restricted the entry to the narrow illustrations given to show that it is necessary for someone to champion a defendant in what may appear to be a hopeless situation.
If the article was much longer it would have to sray into technical rules at court including submissions of no case to answer, advice at the close of the prosecution case and advice to the defendant to change his/her pea when the evidence was overwhelming etc. If this is required to give a fuller more rounded perspective I am more than happy to expand the entry to cover such other matters. I will be guided by any editor's preferences.
So far as justice being bought - that could only happen in the highest profile cases where there is money for this purpose. However, it is still "excellence" that is being bought.

To Traveller in time.
I have made the alterations suggested. At present the changed style of the title does not appear at the top of this sream.

Traveller in Time changing the subject manually
"It will not automatically and even changing the subject will not change the subject as how we are informed of new postings on this converstation.

"

Traveller in Time - the heading on your last entry did have a changed heading!

Very nice entry - can you also mention that they don't always choose their clients (cab rank principle), and that they do have some 'theoretical' constraints - I thought that if a defendant told them they were guilty but asked to plead not guilty, they were supposed to drop the case?


sprout

If a client is "guilty" but wants to plead 'Not Guilty' - no problem. If found guilty he/she will lose the credit of a discounted sentence for the inconvenience that could have been avoided. However the system works like this:-
'Not Guilty' entered.
Prosecution call their evidence.
This is challenged through out by the defence team ( barrister or solicitor).
At the end of the Prosecution case the Defence can submit "No case to answer" if the evidence of the Prosecution is flawed.
If the judge agrees that the evidence is too weak (not beyond the balance of probabilities at this stage) the case can be thrown out.
If the judge rules there is a prima facie case the Defence can't call their client to tell lies - professional ethics etc (and a little morality here).
At this point the defendant may be advised to change his/her plea.
If you listen/read carefully to media reports you can pick this up "The defendant changed his/her plea" often comes at the end of this process.

Does this help?

Much clearer thanks - will you put it in the entry?

sprout

Entry now modified to include Sprouts' suggestion

Any more ideas or requirements for this entry? Things have gone a bit quiet.

"through out" should be throughout.

sorry to be petty, otherwise a very good article and much better than anything I could do.

whole-heartedly recommended for the edited guide

Updated as per entry 17. Also develped the conclusion a little to correct many common misconceptions - perhaps. One can but try.

I found the article interesting, although different from my experience of solicitors, maybe its not a good idea to point out they only get £250 a day, when many reading it only get £250 per week.
I'm not very good at spelling but on my version of the article I saw continuously miss-typed.
I agree with one of the guides that the article should be written in the third person.
The article could benefit from some references and maybe some more examples of injustice put right by defence lawyers.
On the whole it is an interesting article and maybe could be made more interesting with more explanation of the legal process.

Did I mention money? Will delve into the text and erase as I take you point. Will search for the spelling error. Can someone bolt on a spell check facility (English UK) ?
I will also add the simple situation where lawyers act for many defendants who are pleading guilty and are being sentenced. Here they simply speak for the defendant in mitigation and ask the court for a variety of reasons for a lenient sentence. 98% of all criminal cases are dealt with to conclusion in the magistrates courts.