Story here.
Were do these bastards get any idea from. They gang rape women and ask for clemency? Not saying he is innocent but asking for a reduction in time.
Sometimes the death penalty appeals to me. ( Not for me, mind you).
You’re certainly right to pit his legal team. They should have accepted the obligation to represent him and then kneecapped the bastard. Fuck him for expecting a lawyer! If he can’t figure out enough legal procedure to effectively defend himself, I say, let him rot in jail.
Statistically, fourteen out fifteen people enjoy gang rape.
And with hand on heart give an explanation like that? But if you wish them to have no ethics- hey your call.
Which end are they on?
Their ethics require they vigorously defend their client within the bounds of the la. Pointout out that the victim suffered no last or serious physical trauma is certainly not inappropriate.
Fucktards like you will scream bloody murder if you ever need a lawyer, and spend your time prior to that disapproving how lawyers defend other people. In your view, I guess, lawyers should … what? Defend the innocent, and leave the guilty to swing? And they should decide this themselves, should they?
Yeah, that’s good. In fact, since defense lawyers can know everything about a case and can inerrently make the call on guilty, we can save a shitload of cash paying judges and keeping up courtrooms. Let’s just present an accused to the lawyer, get a quick read on his guilt, and then the bailiff can fire when ready.
Bricker,
Even though you may never acknowledge someone has enough knowledge to cope with your moral high ground, I do have legal training. I would add that I am not legally qualified. I do have difficulty accepting people from the legal profession accepting money to represent- and make statements about their clients which are incompatible with the truth.
But lets not get away from real question- and I ask you directly- do you have any sympathy with the guy in the clink?
PS:. I think your name should start with a letter further down the alphabet.
I am going to hell for thinking this is hilarious.
This is completely irrelevant. An accused is entitled to a vigourous, competent, and whole-hearted legal defense. Such defense certainly includes mitigation of sentencing.
Did you actually read the report? He is no longer the accused- he has been found guilty.
I expect more from moderators- especially the ability to comprehend.
Seconded. Why had I never heard that before? I blame the schools.
Did you read my post?
Do you believe that once someone is convicted, the lawyer should just throw up his hands and say, “Yeah, fry him. Whatever.”
Well yes I did read your post.
And no- that should not be the end of the event if their is a chance of a reduction of sentence.
But, again you ignore your own failures- that is you got it wrong.
He was not a defendent. He is appealing against his sentence- never saying he is not guilty.
Can I be more explicit?
He has the legal right to do so. People here (and everywhere else) frequently complain about too harsh or too lenient penalties handed out for certain crimes, pointing out mitigating circumstances, perceived bias, etc. If you deny him this right, you also deny the hypothetical “minor” criminal too-harshly sentenced for things like dealing crack instead of the more socially acceptable cocaine, the petty thief who gets a longer sentence than a white collar embezzler, and so on.
You could be smarter.
Y’know, here in the States, we’ve got the death penalty. If you had your way, no convicted defendant would be allowed to appeal against such a sentence.
If the criminal’s (there, happy now?) lawyer believes that he can gain his client a reduced sentence, it is his duty to pursue that.
Umm- could you explain where I have said no defendant should be unable to be able to appeal his / her sentence?
Or is this just another bullshit line of yours to distract from the main thrust?
And also I know I could be smareer. I wish I was. I wish you were as well.
Nowhere, but the point is that if you deny one, you deny them all.
How in the world can an hour long gang rape cause “no significant harm?” She’ll be traumatized for life. I imagine that harms her. It would me.
Whether the lawyer was legally justified in spewing such bullshit is beyond my ability to judge; I will certainly bow to **Bricker **on that issue. But as a human being, he should be ashamed.
Well, the main thrust of you incoherent OP seems to be that, even if he’s legally able to appeal after conviction, he shouldn’t do so, and his lawyers shouldn’t represent him anymore, and you Pit them for doing so.
Or am I wrong? Maybe you could help us out a little as to exactly what the fuck it is you’re trying to say.