Author Topic: The case for the defence  (Read 7297 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Highlander

  • Lord of the Rings
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21645
  • Age: 72
  • Location: Dingwall, Ross-shire (God's Own Country)
The case for the defence
« on: November 29, 2013, 13:39:01 PM »
Should the people defending Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale be congratulated for ensuring that the justice system that Lee Rigby would have fought for was upheld or vilified for assisting the two individuals involved who admitted their obscene crime in it's immediate aftermath.

Offline kenkay

  • Radcliffe, Manchester, UK
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2738
  • Age: 79
  • Location: Radcliffe, United Kingdom
Re: The case for the defence
« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2013, 14:00:36 PM »
I believe that all are entitled to a fair trial. However when there is absolutely no doubt of their guilt (especially of such a heinous crime) I think the persons who defend them, for money, are just as much scumbags. That's me "sitting on the fence".

Offline teetee

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 546
  • Location: Sunny Surrey......sometimes!!
  • Travel broadens your mind......and your waist!
Re: The case for the defence
« Reply #2 on: November 29, 2013, 14:20:48 PM »
Our justice system provides for those accused to be represented and like it or not someone has to do it if it is requested.

It is unjust to label those who have stepped in to do this "job" as scumbags.

The law states that everyone is entitled to a defence even against the indefensible.

Offline Colwyn

  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6412
  • Location: Bristol
Re: The case for the defence
« Reply #3 on: November 29, 2013, 14:24:35 PM »
We have an adversarial legal system. We have had for centuries. To make it work both the accused and the accuser/s are entitled to legal representation. The legal representatives are entitled to be paid. I don't see that there is anything here worth questioning. If people don't like it, what would they like instead? That the guilt or innocence of the accused is decided in advance and then only the innocent get representation? I don't see why we would need a court system at all under those circumstances since the "authorities" would already have decided things. Which, of course, is it the way things used to be in this country several centuries ago before habeas corpus and other civil rights were established through struggles to establish a system of law that bound first kings and then parliaments.


The alternative is Guantanamo Bay. I'll join with others in a fight against attempts to establish any such thing in the UK.

Offline mercury

  • Turkey
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5081
  • Age: 70
  • Location: England
Re: The case for the defence
« Reply #4 on: November 29, 2013, 14:29:15 PM »
The same argument could be said about the defence of The Moors Murder's and other high profile cases.. The alternative these days seems to be trial by media..

Offline JohnF

  • Administrator
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4322
Re: The case for the defence
« Reply #5 on: November 29, 2013, 16:17:56 PM »
I believe that all are entitled to a fair trial. However when there is absolutely no doubt of their guilt (especially of such a heinous crime) I think the persons who defend them, for money, are just as much scumbags. That's me "sitting on the fence".

So pray tell, how will they achieve a fair trial (which you believe they are entitled to) without competent legal representation? 

And if you don't believe their lawyers should be remunerated in "money", what's your alternative?

JF


Offline Scunner

  • Chairman of the Bored
  • Administrator
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45714
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Perthchester
Re: The case for the defence
« Reply #6 on: November 29, 2013, 16:38:48 PM »
Work experience youths?

Offline Highlander

  • Lord of the Rings
  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21645
  • Age: 72
  • Location: Dingwall, Ross-shire (God's Own Country)
Re: The case for the defence
« Reply #7 on: November 29, 2013, 17:09:38 PM »
Try as I might I could not find out for certain that the defence is being mounted by a private firm.

It was on the assumption that it was a private firm, that I asked if they should be congratulated or vilified.

Offline Colwyn

  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6412
  • Location: Bristol
Re: The case for the defence
« Reply #8 on: November 29, 2013, 17:39:28 PM »
It doesn't make any difference to my view of the issue but if you are interested in pursuing it you could start with the defence lawyer at the first court appearance back in June. It was David Gottlieb of Thomas More Chambers, Lincolns Inn Fields. He may very well be the current defence counsel. Here is his profile: http://www.thomasmore.co.uk/members/david_gottlieb


Offline kevin3

  • Prolific Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4419
  • Location: United Kingdom
Re: The case for the defence
« Reply #9 on: November 29, 2013, 17:56:35 PM »
They should be shown the same mercy they showed to Lee Rigby.    >:( >:( >:(




Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf