Otis
Well-Known Member
Just always wondered how they can defend a client in court that they know is guilty.
I understand them trying to get their client a fair trial and highlighting mitigating circumstances and background and trying to obtain the best deal etc.,but when they know the client is guilty, I just cannot stomach their trying to get their client off, which therefore deems that client to be not guilty.
This Turpin family case in the US is surely one of those cases. It is surely clear as day that this couple are guilty of at least child cruelty. So much evidence.
Children shackled and chained to their beds. The police actually found the children chained to the beds.
Children never ever having received dental treatment.
No child having been to the doctors in more than 4 years.
Human excrement on the floor.
The children all malnourished and underweight, apart from the very youngest. The 29 year old looks like a child and is just 6 stone.
These are all facts (apart from the police finding the children chained, which would then obviously mean that they all would have had to have lied if untrue). The malnutrition and weights and dental care and doctors facts etc. will be measured and tested facts, as long as the reports are true. This is seemingly child neglect pure and simple.
After that it is indeed allegations of course.
That the children had seemingly been plotting an escape plan for 2 years.
The children were starved and beaten.
The children were only allowed to shower once a year.
The parents would taunt then with food, letting them see it and smell it, but not eat it.
That the children were never allowed to play with toys.
That if they washed above their wrists when washing their hands they were punished.
There are obviously cases where the defence lawyer knows their client is guilty and that for me is where the law is an ass. If I was a lawyer I could never, ever defend a client I knew was guilty. I would only take the case on the premise that the client knows I believe them to be guilty and am only there to see they receive a fair trail and to present mitigating circumstances, diminished responsibility etc.
I would love to see some sort of law whereby a lawyer can only put up a defence of innocence for their client if they do indeed believe them to be innocent.
At the moment everyone just accepts it's just a lawyer just doing his or her job. If they could only take a case where there is doubt, or they believe their client is innocent, it puts them more on the block and more in a position of responsibility and scrutiny.
I think that ethics, morality, scruples and a sense of right and wrong has to be at the forefront of any defence lawyer's remit surely.
The same too of course can be said for any prosecutor trying to prove guilt when they believe the defendant to be innocent.
Maybe this Turpin case isn't the best example (it just made me reflect on the situation once again), but there are clearly cases where the client is clearly guilty, but the defence lawyer tries to obtain a verdict of not guilty.
It would be totally against everything I stand for to try and get a verdict of not guilty for a client I believe to be guilty.
I understand them trying to get their client a fair trial and highlighting mitigating circumstances and background and trying to obtain the best deal etc.,but when they know the client is guilty, I just cannot stomach their trying to get their client off, which therefore deems that client to be not guilty.
This Turpin family case in the US is surely one of those cases. It is surely clear as day that this couple are guilty of at least child cruelty. So much evidence.
Children shackled and chained to their beds. The police actually found the children chained to the beds.
Children never ever having received dental treatment.
No child having been to the doctors in more than 4 years.
Human excrement on the floor.
The children all malnourished and underweight, apart from the very youngest. The 29 year old looks like a child and is just 6 stone.
These are all facts (apart from the police finding the children chained, which would then obviously mean that they all would have had to have lied if untrue). The malnutrition and weights and dental care and doctors facts etc. will be measured and tested facts, as long as the reports are true. This is seemingly child neglect pure and simple.
After that it is indeed allegations of course.
That the children had seemingly been plotting an escape plan for 2 years.
The children were starved and beaten.
The children were only allowed to shower once a year.
The parents would taunt then with food, letting them see it and smell it, but not eat it.
That the children were never allowed to play with toys.
That if they washed above their wrists when washing their hands they were punished.
There are obviously cases where the defence lawyer knows their client is guilty and that for me is where the law is an ass. If I was a lawyer I could never, ever defend a client I knew was guilty. I would only take the case on the premise that the client knows I believe them to be guilty and am only there to see they receive a fair trail and to present mitigating circumstances, diminished responsibility etc.
I would love to see some sort of law whereby a lawyer can only put up a defence of innocence for their client if they do indeed believe them to be innocent.
At the moment everyone just accepts it's just a lawyer just doing his or her job. If they could only take a case where there is doubt, or they believe their client is innocent, it puts them more on the block and more in a position of responsibility and scrutiny.
I think that ethics, morality, scruples and a sense of right and wrong has to be at the forefront of any defence lawyer's remit surely.
The same too of course can be said for any prosecutor trying to prove guilt when they believe the defendant to be innocent.
Maybe this Turpin case isn't the best example (it just made me reflect on the situation once again), but there are clearly cases where the client is clearly guilty, but the defence lawyer tries to obtain a verdict of not guilty.
It would be totally against everything I stand for to try and get a verdict of not guilty for a client I believe to be guilty.
Last edited: