[carboy]

Originally Posted by amit

I do agree with everything that you say but what has irritated people is the spirited and passionate defence that these guys have been putting up for these beasts.

What do you expect the lawyers to do? Put up a half hearted defense.

[sgiitk]

Originally Posted by mannubhai

Irony is that the lawyer wants mercy on him for the sake of that child. That girl was also someone's child

Also PUCL's Sudha Ramalingham started bleating pronto. Surprisingly Vrinda Grover was supporting due to her pathological opposition to the death penalty. As I saw on one post as the girl was sent to Singapore for treatment, these beasts should be sent to Saudi Arabia for punishment!

Who cares about the human rights of the victim?

[mannubhai]

Originally Posted by carboy

What do you expect the lawyers to do? Put up a half hearted defense.

Doing a job, agreed. But with such a ridiculous statement ? ? Plus, the culprits are daily wage workers / jobless. How do they manage to pay for a high profile lawyer ? Isn't it a canvassing campaign to be a " criminal" lawyer for future clients ?

Originally Posted by sgiitk

these beasts should be sent to Saudi Arabia for punishment!

Oh No !! Its even worse there. The victim needs to prove that she was raped, and 4 non-related male witnesses needs to be presented and testified. Else she gets whipped for sleeping with someone other than her husband.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by mannubhai

Doing a job, agreed. But with such a ridiculous statement ? ?

I am not sure which statement you are referring to, but defense lawyers always put up alternate hypotheticals to show that a particular claim needs to be proven.

Originally Posted by mannubhai

Plus, the culprits are daily wage workers / jobless. How do they manage to pay for a high profile lawyer ? Isn't it a canvassing campaign to be a " criminal" lawyer for future clients ?

Lawyers routinely take up 'pro bono' cases. If a lawyer puts up a spirited defense even in a case where his chances are hopeless, I will most certainly look him up if I needed a criminal lawyer.

Originally Posted by mannubhai

Oh No !! Its even worse there. The victim needs to prove that she was raped, and 4 non-related male witnesses needs to be presented and testified. Else she gets whipped for sleeping with someone other than her husband.

What are you suggesting that the case need not be proved?

[mannubhai]

Originally Posted by carboy

I am not sure which statement you are referring to, but defense lawyers always put up alternate hypotheticals to show that a particular claim needs to be proven.

Lawyers routinely take up 'pro bono' cases. If a lawyer puts up a spirited defense even in a case where his chances are hopeless, I will most certainly look him up if I needed a criminal lawyer.

I was referring to the mercy pleas of the lawyers using statements like "
"God gives life, God alone can take it"! :etc.

What are you suggesting that the case need not be proved?

That was to the Saudi Arabia point. Nothing to do with the Delhi case. General notion that in KSA rapists gets their **** chopped off and are given death are wrong.

[sgiitk]

I thought they were publicly stoned to death.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by mannubhai

I was referring to the mercy pleas of the lawyers using statements like "
"God gives life, God alone can take it"! :etc.

This is really a very standard argument against death penalty. I am pretty sure it comes up in a lot of death penalty cases.

[drmohitg]

I have always wanted to ask this and the last couple of pages of discussion on this thread have been raising the same issue. What exactly is the working style of the law anywhere in the world? We are told that every person has a right to defence in the court of law. So going by this every accused ( regardless of the criminal act he or she has been accused of committing) has a legal right for defense. In which case why are we feeling enraged on the defence lawyers arguments? If we never intended to give this a fair hearing then why not just shoot the accused or give whatever punishment you deem fit and spare us all this hoopla about courts. The same thing was raised even in Kasab's case which was another open and shut case according to many. Infact this age old practice of letting every accused have a right to defence is what ensures the pardon of so many rich and powerful criminals/politicians in our courts everyday. Where is the justice in all this? But ofcourse it sounds very morally correct that every person has a right to a defence attorney!

[carboy]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

I have always wanted to ask this and the last couple of pages of discussion on this thread have been raising the same issue. What exactly is the working style of the law anywhere in the world?

Right to defense is only the working style of law in democracies - it's not in non-democracies.

Originally Posted by drmohitg

Infact this age old practice of letting every accused have a right to defence is what ensures the pardon of so many rich and powerful criminals/politicians in our courts everyday. Where is the justice in all this? But ofcourse it sounds very morally correct that every person has a right to a defence attorney!

What are you suggesting - we do away with right to defense?

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by carboy

Right to defense is only the working style of law in democracies - it's not in non-democracies.

so since we are a democracy and we believe in keeping it that way, then with what right are we questioning the lawyer's passion to defend his client?

What are you suggesting - we do away with right to defense?

Its such a gray area. On one hand we believe in a fair trial and all that. On the other hand to see lawyers trying to defend such animals makes our blood boil. So what is the solution for this? Infact I would like to know from our members here who are into law as to what goes through a lawyer's mind, morally and humanitarian basis, while defending a criminal in such a case where from the start you know that he is guilty. If you succeed then can you really look into your loved one's eyes in the evening and say that you saved a person like this today?

[WindRide]

Difficult to understand the rant against the defence lawyers. They are doing their job. Better lawyers increase the hyperbole, thats all. Goal of the defence lawyer is to get the accused free by acting within the ambit of legal framework.

I see nothing wrong in the defence lawyers trying to make the judge cry by highlighting the helplessness of the accused's parents/family and the poverty-stricken backgrounds they come from and how the accused are reincarnation of Mother Teresa. The lawyers will try every trick in the book to get the accused walk free. At the end of the day, wisdom of the judge will prevail and the law of the land should be carried out.

Its an entirely different cup of tea if you feel the law of the land is not barbaric enough.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

so since we are a democracy and we believe in keeping it that way, then with what right are we questioning the lawyer's passion to defend his client?

Anyone who does so hasn't thought through stuff, IMHO.

Originally Posted by drmohitg

Its such a gray area. On one hand we believe in a fair trial and all that. On the other hand to see lawyers trying to defend such animals makes our blood boil.

Because it makes your blood boil doesn't make it a gray area.

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by carboy

Because it makes your blood boil doesn't make it a gray area.

So assuming that this case merits death punishment for all the 4 accused ( or 3 of them left now). And lets say the defence lawyer is so good and resourceful that he gets them out with merely 3-4 years in jail. So what do we have? A victory of our legal system or a failure of our society? That is what has been puzzling me.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

I thought they were publicly stoned to death.

Could be true, but that punishment is meted out only after the victim is able to prove rape with 4 witness, who are male and unrelated to the victim.

The question is if 4 male individuals can testify for the victim, then those 4 can prevent rape itself (4 vs 1). So this is pointless law. Incase the rape accused are sent to KSA, they will be acquitted in 99.99% of cases.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

So assuming that this case merits death punishment for all the 4 accused ( or 3 of them left now). And lets say the defence lawyer is so good and resourceful that he gets them out with merely 3-4 years in jail. So what do we have? A victory of our legal system or a failure of our society? That is what has been puzzling me.

If you want to assume that the case merits death punishment, then you should be able to assume that the prosecutor will convince the judge that it does. Your or my opinion on whether any case merits death punishment is not relevant. It's the judge's opinion which matters. Otherwise, we should not have court trials and just allow the citizens to vote by SMS like Indian Idol. Send 'A' for guilty, 'B' for not guilty. Send 'A' for chemical castration, 'B' for hanging, 'C' for 5 years etc.