No he lost his rights when he took his victims away. In situations like this unfortunately a lawyer has to defend lowlifes and he ll be getting paid by us, so he won t worry too much.. Incredible!
My son is a barrister. Anyone who wishes to apply to a court is entitled to professional representation (that s what advocate means) and it matters not what the personal feelings of the lawyer are. Under the Bar Council Rules a barrister is unable to refuse a brief except for very limited reasons such as a conflict of professional (not personal) interests. Whatever Peter Sutcliff s argument he is entitled to a spokesman in court. The lawyer will also advise on the merits of the proposed argument.
Lawyers get around the problem of conscience by insisting that due process is more important than natural justice. Under English law the home secretary can decide whether or not a person may be released in exceptionally serious cases like Sutcliffe s. I don t actually believe that is a good thing. It could be argued that Sutcliffe is a political prisoner. I think there is a better way of dealing with people like him and it s the death penalty.
I don t think he should and don t believe he will be successful. At the same time, he has a right to legal representation. The right to this is one of the cornerstones of the judicial system in the UK, so the lawyer is right to represent him. If we start to decide who will have representation and who not we re on the way to a police state. The people I can t understand is the women who want to be his pen friend.
Come on...lawyers are there to contest and produce an argument. Tis true Mr. Sutcliffe should remain where he is - and if solicitors want to make names for themselves, let them have their day(s) out in court. It s also his right, believe it or not. He received his life sentence in 1981, with the judge putting a 30 year condition...before he s even considered for parole, which means he can apply in 2011 - but, as we ve seen before, governments in power shy away, either by the populist press or memories of their own, concerning the late 70 s. Lawyers are only doing their job - could be they will mention his time in jail/institution where every petty con who wanted to make a name for themselves inside making their way to sex-case Sutcliffe, with jugs of boiling water, home-made knives, glass, etc for most of his 27 or so years. Wonder what the lasses (a fair few, bedamned) who have wrote to him over the same time will be thinking?
If a person cannot get a lawyer to represent him the law says he cannot be tried due to not being able to get qualified representation!!!! Whether he should be able to make these sort of questions is another question entirely! But how would you like to be charged with an offence and not be able to have legal representation? You would have been judged guilty without trial!!!
Free advertising. And should the lawyer win then people will be queueing up for his services, because anyone who could successfully represent someone like Sutcliffe, and win, must be brilliant at his job. Had the death penalty been in force - for EXCEPTIONAL cases like the Yorkshire Ripper - then we wouldn t be having this debate. And can anyone say there was ever any possibility of a miscarriage of justice in Sutcliffe s case?
Hopefully he will end up with a lawyer that take the case but does a bad job; it s a high profile case, so this means more money for the lawyer. Everyone has the right to have legal representation but I don t think any good person (not money driven) would want this case. When your in prison you should not have any human rights.
money and publicity. With a case as strong as this, naturally sutcliffe will be paying for the best money can buy, and if he wins the case this lawyer will build up a spectacular reputation amongst criminals and will no doubt get more money and clients. Doubt he ll get a good night s sleep though with that on his conscience, sure money can buy you happiness but it can t buy a clear conscience
No, I don t think he should ever be freed, nor do I think the taxpayer should pay to keep him. This Solicitor obviously has no morals, the mans a Psychopath and women wouldn t be safe if he were released. Having said that the Human Rights legislation she is exploiting needs urgent reform to protect society as a whole from criminals, terrorists and failed asylum seekers.
Some lawyers have no conscience. All they see are the dollar signs. And when their client, a rapist or killer gets off, these lawyers check off another win on their score cards. It s just a game for some lawyers. This is why lawyers are one of the most hated and least trusted people in our society.
Every criminal in the land has a defence lawyer, it s a necessity, or the prosecution would run rings around them, as for sutcliffe any normal person would know he is going to spend the rest of his life in prison....no doubt what so ever.
It is equal representation which is being defended i don t believe for a minute she is a friend of Peter Sutcliffe. He has no chance of getting out it is how much in taxpayers money that going to be wasted that concerns me.
i know what you mean. But you have to remember they have to put up a barrier on their personal emotions... and see it as their job. Also, she is a legal aid lawyer... this will boost her crdibility as a lawyer if she succeeds. But i know.. its shocking.
Who ever it is, is a greedy lowlife. Human rights....Fcuk off! Leave him in the cell with Sutcliffe for a week with no gaurds, then he too can learn all about Peters version of Human rights.
the lawyer would argue everyone is entitled to legal representation hes right the british legal system is better than most, if not all
The lawyer in question was voted the best Legal Aid lawyer for the mentally ill in 2006. Guess who will be footing the bill for all this? You got it - the tax payer!
The lawyer would be defending the Constitution, not the Yorkshire Ripper.
Don t blame the lawyer, blame the legal system. :)
Remember, you need to be proved guilty so everyone needs a lawyer.
If he is successful then it s definitely time to emigrate.
because lawyers sell their souls to the devil...they do not have a conscience...they have a till in their heads and all they hear is KER-CHING...
could any lawyer with a conscience eat yorkshire pudding?
Lawyers dont have consciences
one word......MONEY! i dont agree at all i think they should through away teh key - serial killer should mean life for ever not for a while
Do lawyers have consciences?
Have lawyers got a conscience?
0 comments:
Post a Comment