DPP attacks fundamentalist liberal lawyers

#1
Link here

The Director of Public Prosecutions has attacked the legal establishment for its patronising attitude towards victims of crime, and warned of a rise in vigilantism unless courts are seen to be providing justice.

Perception that no-one looks out for the victim is not wildly wrong'
Ken Macdonald QC accused some criminal lawyers of holding "fundamentalist" views that only the rights of the defendants mattered.
 
#2
It's not just the fault of 'liberal' lawyers - one of the fundamental principles of being a barrister is that you have to do the best for your client - and you are not allowed to refuse to represent someone, even if you disagree with their actions or views - these lawyers are not SUPPOSED to be taking into account the victims whilst representing their clients.

Our legal system is based on adversarial process - you against me - perhaps the victims need better barristers...
 
#3
Prodigal said:
It's not just the fault of 'liberal' lawyers - one of the fundamental principles of being a barrister is that you have to do the best for your client - and you are not allowed to refuse to represent someone, even if you disagree with their actions or views - these lawyers are not SUPPOSED to be taking into account the victims whilst representing their clients.

Our legal system is based on adversarial process - you against me - perhaps the victims need better barristers...
Yes but there are also those lawers who go above and beyond for scrotes, and specialise in the "human rights" of people who wouldn't think twice about the rights of others.

I think these are the people originally referred to.
 
#4
But Mark, that is the job of the lawyers representing the victims - to demand and promote their rights. I would love to see a case against a criminal on the basis that the crim took away the Human Rights of his victim.......... and be sued on that basis! Why don't we see more about that in the press?
 
#5
I think what the DPP was referring to was the so called 'sentencing' and how this very seldom takes into account how a convicted criminals actions have impacted on their victims lives. 5 years for a phaeodophile who has most probably mentally scarred his victim for life would seem, to the man in the street, to be excessively lenient.

I could list dozens of similar cases. The DPP seems to be stating a concern that the general public are becoming so dissillusioned with the justice system generally, and the judiciary specifically, that a critical breakdown might occur which would lead to mob rule - anarchy.

I am not sure that will happen, but I do agree that sentencing of convicted criminals is far too lenient and that trust in the legal system is at an all time low. The reasons for this many and varied, including a shortage of prisons and prison space due to government cut backs on prison building (despite their pledge to be tough on crime etc), the human rights debacle which the same government foisted on us and a judiciary who are more concerned with the rights of criminals than society at large.

You can paint up the reasons for the last anyway you like, lawyers etc. It will not change the fact that the public no longer trust the legal system to protect them from serial criminals of any ilk (much less violent ones!) in the way it ought to. For too long lawyers and judges have, along with left leaning sociologists and politicians, blamed society for making an individual a criminal, rather than blaming the individual for conducting criminal activity. A load of utter tosh - society made 'you' a criminal because you didn't have a satellite dish/access to better education etc.

The law abiding majority of this country, by and large, take responsibility for the way they run their lives and how they conduct themselves. It is maddening to see judges who are cossetted from reality tell us that convict x needs therapy and understanding for sexually assualting children, or issuing community service orders to an individual convicted of hundreds of burglaries. (Incidentally, I bet that same judge would get a dozen or so coppers round the house if it was burgaled, rather than the crime number we would get if it happened to us!)

If the DPP's statement makes the judiciary take a good look at itself and start to reflect the concerns of society at large, he will done our country a huge service. However, I would not count on it. There is far too much money to be made defending those who willing break the law of the land.
 
#6
Prodigal said:
But Mark, that is the job of the lawyers representing the victims - to demand and promote their rights. I would love to see a case against a criminal on the basis that the crim took away the Human Rights of his victim.......... and be sued on that basis! Why don't we see more about that in the press?
I think this can probably apply to most defence lawyers, however there seem to be a select few that are either attention whores or who have an agenda and are using their knowledge of the law to put right a percieved social injustice that isn't really an injustice at all, just common sense.

I too would love to see someone helping the victims with as much enthusiasm, but one must conclude that there isn't enough money in it, or it doesn't fit in with their beliefs to help those who have genuinly been wronged against.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3497942.stm read this link for an example of a woman who isn't just doing her job.

And this guy, http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/story/0,,1402831,00.html who advertised for people who had been mistreated or had relatives killed by British soldiers in Iraq.

IF you agree with their politics or not, its hard to disagree that they both have an agenda, this is why i chose them as examples, not because i disagree with their politics but merly to point out that they see their job as more than just providing satisfactory defence of suspects but rather a way to change percieved injustices.
 
#7
Yes, I can see your point, they certainly do have obviously held beliefs. But the example of Gareth Pearce (what a weird name for a woman...) proves both our cases - she was successful for her clients through an extremely high level of diligence and competence - she was able to prove that the original prosecutions were unsafe. Now, the people who made those cases unsafe were also working to their own agendas, weren't they? And, perhaps their desire to get justice over ruled their competence as prosecutors of the law. Is it justice to jail the wrong people for what feels like the right reasons? Or is it incompetence?

By creating unsafe cases no purpose was served for the victims, however satisfying the original convictions must have felt.
 

Latest Threads