oh dear musnt offend the fashion police

[Mustapha]

hmm, why is she on bail with conditions, one of which is to reside at a home address....probably as she is likely to do a runner, or go out at night and cause more problems. still lets not knock on her door after 11 at night, shell obviously stay in bed all night. If i had a pound for every time a little s**t went out after we checked up on them id be rich. We used to do it a couple of times a night sometimes and guess what theyd usually go out thinking oh the police have been i can go out and screw a car/rob a house etc. thats why we did them at all hours. If you dont want it done then dont do the crime in the first place. SHe agrees to it as a condition of her bail, the alternative is being put on remand

A can see your point, but what about her family, they did not commit a crime but they would be punished by this disturbance, and it is possible their neighbours could be too. I trhink she should have been told to "Wear the tag or go to prison, your choice". To make her family and neighbours pay for her crime is not justice, but state intimidation.

 

[Thermo]

she gives it as her bail address, so what else can they do but go there. Perhaps she should give a toss about the effect it has on her family, let alone the victim and others familys. State intimdation my arse.

 

[Mustapha]

I agree Thermo to a certain extent, but she has only been accused of the crime at this time, not convicted and this is an important difference we would all be advised to remember.

It is a simple matter for any of us to be accused of a crime, wholly another to be convicted. If we start treating all the accused as automatically guilty then we are on a slippery slope, and as a Solicitor I find this a most worrying trend in the legal system.

 

[andy]

she should have to wear it. if she has a problem with wearing it, then she should be locked up. which is where she would be if bail wasnt an option. end of.

 

[Mustapha]

she should have to wear it. if she has a problem with wearing it, then she should be locked up. which is where she would be if bail wasnt an option. end of.

I beleive that was my point in my first post Andy, it is the onl;y options she should have been given in court and is a simple example of a weak bench.

 

[andy]

she should have to wear it. if she has a problem with wearing it, then she should be locked up. which is where she would be if bail wasnt an option. end of.

I beleive that was my point in my first post Andy, it is the onl;y options she should have been given in court and is a simple example of a weak bench.

thing is, the police seem to do a good job. it all fails tho when it gets to court. id blame government. and all this 'politically (in)correct' ****e

 

[Mustapha]

Andy, as a working solicitor I see this everyday. I defend and prosecute for the CPS, and it never ceases to amaze me that even when convicted of serious or repeated offences, convicted persons often get sentences that make a mockery of the law and the wishes of the public.

I have come to the conclusion that the majority of those on the bench should be left on the one in the park as they seem totally out of touch with reality and the world we live in today. Even many stipendary magistrates seem less effective than 10 years ago, although they do seem to be more sensible than others.

 

[Thermo]

all you can do is try. Thats what i did during my service. If the bench let you down or (and please dont take this personally) some of the appalling prosecutors (another underfunded and overworked area) then so be it. I can recall examples of magistrates falling asleep, asking questions that showed a complete and utter loss of reality as well as complete niavity. Some stipes were very good though!

 

[Mustapha]

Thermo, I understand your meaning, but I feel, as someone in a position to know, that there are a lot of very poor solicitors out there, and many specialise in Prosecutorial work, the Police and other law enforcement agencies do the bulk of the leg work in this instance so they are able to take the back seat.

I personally prefer defence work, although unlike many of my colleagues I am particular about those I defend. I find the challenge of defending more to my liking as it gives me something to "investigate".

My real gripe with the current system is that it is too adversarial and competitive. It should be that both sides present their case, and then the decision is as to whether their is sufficient evidence for a conviction or enough doubt for an aquital.

Many times I see the Police have done a first rate job, and my client should be convicted, but the CPS do such a shody job that in 50% of cases my client is aquited, regardless of the quality of Job I do. I don't take solice in this, I live in the Society I work in, the very same society that these criminals operate in, quite often I would like to see them off the streets as much as any member of the public. Unfortunately inept prosecution often means they go free.

However there are many times when shoddy Police work lets people escape a conviction, and often this is in record keeping or simple procedural matters, this is a shame, and I do feel that the Police Service should educate their Officers to eradicate these deficiencies to allow them to better undertake the defence of society.

 

[Freddie]

Mustapha doesnt it get to you when you have got a piece of dirt off from a prison sentance and the dirt goes out and causes harm or distress to someone again, afterall you are in a way responsible for it.

 

[oilman]

RTF post freddie, Mustapha said he doesn't solice when some of his clients go free, so stop rubbing it in.

 

[Mustapha]

Freddie, I try to read all the evidence in front of me before I make a decision on how to proceed with a case.

If I read the evidence and I am convinced that my client in guilty, or there is a reasonable expectation that they will be found guilty, I will do my level best to convince my client that it is in their best interest to plead Guilty and accept the punishment of the court.

Unfortunately many of my clients are not the most intelligent in society, and often choose to plead Not Guilty. I will, as is my sworn duty, defend them, and I will do this to the best of my ability, but I am pleased to say that invariably the evidence is so strong that I am able to sleep at night.

As I have said in my earlier post, I am careful to screen my clients, I will not represent people accused of crimes against children, involving drugs, sex crimes or violent crimes.

These are offences I have strong beliefs about, and I do not feel that I could adequately represent a person accused of such crimes due to personal feelings. I would rather not do the job than do it badly.

 

[Freddie]

RTF post freddie, Mustapha said he doesn't solice when some of his clients go free, so stop rubbing it in.

I am not rubbing anything in and i can also read what mustapha has put even though i just wanted to know his thoughts on these people and their actions when the repeated offender does his deed.

It now seems that not only do you follow people around the forums Oilman making silly remarks to their every post you have now become the spokesman for us all-- amazing--.

By the way what did the shrink say to you today? any electric shock treatment due or just shed therapy?

 

[Freddie]

Freddie, I try to read all the evidence in front of me before I make a decision on how to proceed with a case.

If I read the evidence and I am convinced that my client in guilty, or there is a reasonable expectation that they will be found guilty, I will do my level best to convince my client that it is in their best interest to plead Guilty and accept the punishment of the court.

Unfortunately many of my clients are not the most intelligent in society, and often choose to plead Not Guilty. I will, as is my sworn duty, defend them, and I will do this to the best of my ability, but I am pleased to say that invariably the evidence is so strong that I am able to sleep at night.

As I have said in my earlier post, I am careful to screen my clients, I will not represent people accused of crimes against children, involving drugs, sex crimes or violent crimes.

These are offences I have strong beliefs about, and I do not feel that I could adequately represent a person accused of such crimes due to personal feelings. I would rather not do the job than do it badly.

But even though Mustapha ( before Oilman stuck his big beak in again ) when someone reoffends and it say is nasty, do you not get that twinge that maybe you could have not tried so hard to get him off and maybe people will start to point the finger at you for his actions in part?

 

[oilman]

RTF post freddie, Mustapha said he doesn't solice when some of his clients go free, so stop rubbing it in.

I am not rubbing anything in and i can also read what mustapha has put even though i just wanted to know his thoughts on these people and their actions when the repeated offender does his deed.

Of course you are. How silly of me to think otherwise.

It now seems that not only do you follow people around the forums Oilman making silly remarks to their every post you have now become the spokesman for us all-- amazing--.

I see you're getting the old chestnuts out again, must be coming up to Christmas.

By the way what did the shrink say to you today? any electric shock treatment due or just shed therapy?

If you are going to try and emulate softus's replies, at least get some lessons first, then try to be original, otherwise it looks amateurish.