PoliticalWitch:


Well, here is the answer...



More information here : How can a criminal defence lawyer defend someone who is obviously guilty


Also, from a layman's point of view, it can be very difficult to prove that someone comitted a crime.

Let me use an example.

In 2011, a young and beautiful woman was killed in the UK. Her landlord fell under suspicion because he 'looked like the kind of person who would do such crimes'...and many newspapers ran with that. Fortunately, the Police eventually caught the real killer (a young , handsome man, who happened to be the victim's neighbour').

Of course, Oga landlord had a field day suing for libel in the courts (and winning handsomely I must add).

If we do not allow the guilty the means of defence, even when they are obviously guilty, then there may come a point where inncoent people would suffer because they 'look guilty' . It would be back to the days of rule by lynch mob.

What i am saying is that it is not a noble thing for a Lawyer to defend a criminal(Land grabber,rapist etc) at the expense of the real land owner or victim after knowing that his client is not the rightful owner of that property or that his client actually raped the victim and did not have a consensual sex with the victim.

Love4God:

Law is not a noble proffesion .
How can a lawyer defend a thief or killer even after knowing the truth just because his or her family must feed not minding the threat the thief or the killer would pose to the society if released or what pains or agony the family or persons who are denied justice would pass through ?
Lawyers who defend criminals after knowing the truth are also criminals.

EVERYONE is entitled to a good defense. Your statement is ignorant.

stonecoldcafe:

Every man must be proven innocent until he is found guilty by a competent court
Every man should have his day in court. If we start doing otherwise na u go first complain

A lawyer defending a criminal (land grabber, etc) that they own a property when they know that the criminal(land grabber) is not the actual owner is not a noble thing.
If a king defends a criminal (land grabber)at the expense of the real land owner after knowing the truth can that king be referred to as a noble king?

safarigirl:
someone must stand on the side of a thief, and not everybody accused of being a thief is actually one.

Some people are falsely accused, and the evidence against them is indicting even, imagine if people erroneously tag them guilty, and no one represents them.

In the eyes of the law, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and that is why there is nothijg wrong with standing in for a supposed bad person, as far as the law is concerned. The facts and evidence will prove who is what.

A lawyer defending a criminal(land grabber etc) after knowing that their client is not the actual owner of the property is not a noble thing to do.

JonDon12:


Because the law everywhere is innocent before proven guilty. That's natural, common and international law. The lawyer is just an advocate. A mouth piece for the accused to defend himself to the best of that ability. Now if he's defense fails, he becomes guilty. But everyone needs a chance to defend themselves and that is where lawyers come in

A lawyer defending a criminal(land grabber etc) after knowing that their client is not the actual owner of the property is not a noble thing to do.

Ogbuja rape ogbanje.... what a combination, just like a wizard raped a witch

backbone503:




An accused person that has pleaded not guilty is presumed innocent, hence cannot be convicted of the crime without proper trial. And for the latter to hold, and the accused must appear and be defended in court.

So, a lawyer defending a "criminal" in court is performing his legal duties, and this is good for our legal system and the society at large.

A lawyer defending a criminal (land grabber, etc) that they own a property when they know that the criminal(land grabber) is not the actual owner is not a noble thing.
If a king defends a criminal (land grabber)at the expense of the real land owner after knowing the truth can that king be referred to as a noble king?

killmods:


Not every criminal is eventually convicted and not every convict is an actual perpetrator of the said crime.. Every defendant has a right to have the assistance of counsel

A lawyer defending a criminal (land grabber, etc) that they own a property when they know that the criminal(land grabber) is not the actual owner is not a noble thing.
If a king defends a criminal (land grabber)at the expense of the real land owner after knowing the truth can that king be referred to as a noble king?

ginggerxy:
you are not being rational here

On the contrary,you are the one who is not being rational here.Your comment is illogical. A Lawyer defending a criminal (land grabber, etc) that they own a property when they know that the criminal(land grabber) is not the actual owner is not a noble thing.
If a king defends a criminal (land grabber)at the expense of the real land owner after knowing the truth can that king be referred to as a noble king?

Od1n:

EVERYONE is entitled to a good defense. Your statement is ignorant.

Your statement is illogical as regards to my point here and highly decorated with ignorance.
A lawyer defending a criminal (land grabber, etc) that they own a property when they know that the criminal(land grabber) is not the actual owner is not a noble thing.
If a king defends a criminal (land grabber)at the expense of the real land owner after knowing the truth can that king be referred to as a noble king?

He should be ashamed of himself to say the girl was his girlfriend.

Love4God:

A lawyer defending a criminal(land grabber etc) after knowing that their client is not the actual owner of the property is not a noble thing to do.

Please, let us use terms in their right manner.

A 'criminal' is someone who has been CONVICTED of a crime, the proper term you should use is ACCUSED. And I have told you where the law stands as regards a person's blame in any crime, the law does not reason like the common man. Lawyers do not reason like the common man, what you think you 'know' does not matter in the law court, what matters is PROOF and FACTS, and the law will decide what is the TRUTH.

If you were a lawyer, you would not reason like this. Logic supercedes sentiments in a court.

safarigirl:



Please, let us use terms in their right manner.

A 'criminal' is someone who has been CONVICTED of a crime, the proper term you should use is ACCUSED. And I have told you where the law stands as regards a person's blame in any crime, the law does not reason like the common man. Lawyers do not reason like the common man, what you think you 'know' does not matter in the law court, what matters is PROOF and FACTS, and the law will decide what is the TRUTH.

If you were a lawyer, you would not reason like this. Logic supercedes sentiments in a court.

Dictionary meaning of criminal
1.Being against the law; forbidden by law.
2.Guilty of breaking the law.
3.Of or relating to crime or penal law.
His long criminal record suggests that he is a dangerous man.
4.(figuratively) Abhorrent or very undesirable, even if allowed by law.
Is someone who goes about grabbing people's property,raping,murdering etc not against the law ?
If you commit a crime you are a criminal.
If you tell your lawyer that you want to grab somebody's land which is not yours and he goes to court making a fool of himself by defending you that you are the actual owner of a land which he knows is not yours he is also against the law" a conspirator"(criminal).

Love4God:
A lawyer defending a criminal (land grabber, etc) that they own a property when they know that the criminal(land grabber) is not the actual owner is not a noble thing.
If a king defends a criminal (land grabber)at the expense of the real land owner after knowing the truth can that king be referred to as a noble king?

You are being emotional. Emotion brings sentiments, and this excuses rationality. See, the Rule of Law superceds all other considerations (even National Security).

No matter what, you have no right to call anyone (even if the accused is caught red-handed) a criminal. This power is solely vested on a competent court.

backbone503:


You are being emotional. Emotion brings sentiments, and this excuses rationality. See, the Rule of Law superceds all other considerations (even National Security).

No matter what, you have no right to call anyone (even if the accused is caught red-handed) a criminal. This power is solely vested on a competent court.

Dictionary meaning of criminal
1.Being against the law; forbidden by law.
2.Guilty of breaking the law.
3.Of or relating to crime or penal law.
His long criminal record suggests that he is a dangerous man.
4.(figuratively) Abhorrent or very undesirable, even if allowed by law.
Is someone who goes about grabbing people's property,raping,murdering etc not against the law?
If you commit a crime you are a criminal.
If you tell your lawyer that you want to grab somebody's land which is not yours and he goes to court making a fool of himself by defending you that you are the actual owner of a land which he knows is not yours he is also against the law" a conspirator"(criminal).

Love4God:
Dictionary meaning of criminal
1.Being against the law; forbidden by law.
2.Guilty of breaking the law.
3.Of or relating to crime or penal law.
His long criminal record suggests that he is a dangerous man.
4.(figuratively) Abhorrent or very undesirable, even if allowed by law.
Is someone who goes about grabbing people's property,raping,murdering etc not against the law.
If you commit a crime you are a criminal.
If you tell your lawyer that you want to grab somebody's land which is not yours and he goes to court making a fool of himself by defending you that you are the actual owner of a land which he knows is not yours he is also against the law" a conspirator"(criminal).

you're clearly bereft of comprehension capabilities, I'll leave you to your illogical thoughts.

You might also be a robot, seeing as you keep posting the same thing to multiple people....or imbalanced. Takia

safarigirl:
you're clearly bereft of comprehension capabilities, I'll leave you to your illogical thoughts.

You might also be a robot, seeing as you keep posting the same thing to multiple people....or imbalanced. Takia

You statement is highly decorated with ignorance and your thoughts are very irrational too.Does my usage of the term criminal not befit the meaning of the word?
Should i ignore the post of those who quoted me with the conclusion that they would read further on their own to see my current comment on a thread ?

Love4God:

Law is not a noble proffesion .
How can a lawyer defend a thief or killer even after knowing the truth just because his or her family must feed not minding the threat the thief or the killer would pose to the society if released or what pains or agony the family or persons who are denied justice would pass through ?
Lawyers who defend criminals after knowing the truth are also criminals.

There are cases you din't even need to go to court to determine a suitable punishment. A medical test on the spermatozoa found on the girls private part and it is found to belong to the accused should be automatic death sentence. I wish I can like your comment twice

Cinderallagirl:
Shut up

He has just spoken the plain truth

May you rot in hell, oloriburuku. This girl is too cute to be raped Look at the beauty the beast raped o

Love4God:
Dictionary meaning of criminal
1.Being against the law; forbidden by law.
2.Guilty of breaking the law.
3.Of or relating to crime or penal law.
His long criminal record suggests that he is a dangerous man.
4.(figuratively) Abhorrent or very undesirable, even if allowed by law.
Is someone who goes about grabbing people's property,raping,murdering etc not against the law?
If you commit a crime you are a criminal.
If you tell your lawyer that you want to grab somebody's land which is not yours and he goes to court making a fool of himself by defending you that you are the actual owner of a land which he knows is not yours he is also against the law" a conspirator"(criminal).

Its ok. You know too much. I rest my case.

PoliticalWitch:

In 2011, a young and beautiful woman was killed in the UK. Her landlord fell under suspicion because he 'looked like the kind of person who would do such crimes'...and many newspapers ran with that. Fortunately, the Police eventually caught the real killer (a young , handsome man, who happened to be the victim's neighbour').

Of course, Oga landlord had a field day suing for libel in the courts (and winning handsomely I must add).

That case was too bad...they just ruined the poor man's life because he was introverted/a little strange

Meanwhile it was the PhD engineering candidate that committed the murder... nawa. People still don't even want to believe that he was the one

Love4God:

Law is not a noble proffesion .
How can a lawyer defend a thief or killer even after knowing the truth just because his or her family must feed not minding the threat the thief or the killer would pose to the society if released or what pains or agony the family or persons who are denied justice would pass through ?
Lawyers who defend criminals after knowing the truth are also criminals.

A lawyers job is to defend their client to the best of their ability while abiding by the law. It is not their job to judge the client or their actions. Many lawyers will not ask their client if they're innocent or guilty and there is no reason to believe the client is telling the truth. If lawyers were to make judgements on their clients then in cases where public opinion is against the client or where they were framed by the police would never be won. Innocent people would go to prison because it looks like they were guilty. If a lawyer is able to get a guilty person freed it means the police or the law is lacking and needs to be improved. Without lawyers defending people instead of passing judgement, innocent people would go to prison all the time if they merely seem like the suspect even if they didn't do it.

Fallenhunter:


A lawyers job is to defend their client to the best of their ability while abiding by the law. It is not their job to judge the client or their actions. Many lawyers will not ask their client if they're innocent or guilty and there is no reason to believe the client is telling the truth. If lawyers were to make judgements on their clients then in cases where public opinion is against the client or where they were framed by the police would never be won. Innocent people would go to prison because it looks like they were guilty. If a lawyer is able to get a guilty person freed it means the police or the law is lacking and needs to be improved. Without lawyers defending people instead of passing judgement, innocent people would go to prison all the time if they merely seem like the suspect even if they didn't do it.

A lawyer would ask his or her client if they are guilty or innocent so as to know if an out of court settlement will be the solution.You must tell your lawyer the whole truth if you want him to defend you properly well.Any lie you tell him or her can make you lose a case.
However, in some cases the lawyers decides to go to court despite knowing the truth .
A lawyer defending a criminal (land grabber, etc) that they own a property when they know that the criminal(land grabber) is not the actual owner is not a noble thing.
If a king defends a criminal (land grabber)at the expense of the real land owner after knowing the truth can that king be referred to as a noble king?
If you commit a crime you are a criminal.
If you tell your lawyer that you want to grab somebody's land which is not yours and he goes to court making a fool of himself by defending you that you are the actual owner of a land which he knows is not yours he is also against the law" a conspirator"(criminal).

Law is never a noble profession..
That's why a person like keyamo will continue to make money..because he chose after Satan, the father of lies...

Love4God:

Law is not a noble proffesion .
How can a lawyer defend a thief or killer even after knowing the truth just because his or her family must feed not minding the threat the thief or the killer would pose to the society if released or what pains or agony the family or persons who are denied justice would pass through ?
Lawyers who defend criminals after knowing the truth are also criminals.

Love4God:

A lawyer would ask his or her client if they are guilty or innocent so as to know if an out of court settlement will be the solution.You must tell your lawyer the whole truth if you want him to defend you properly well.Any lie you tell him or her can make you lose a case.
However, in some cases the lawyers decides to go to court despite knowing the truth .
A lawyer defending a criminal (land grabber, etc) that they own a property when they know that the criminal(land grabber) is not the actual owner is not a noble thing.
If a king defends a criminal (land grabber)at the expense of the real land owner after knowing the truth can that king be referred to as a noble king?
If you commit a crime you are a criminal.
If you tell your lawyer that you want to grab somebody's land which is not yours and he goes to court making a fool of himself by defending you that you are the actual owner of a land which he knows is not yours he is also against the law" a conspirator"(criminal).

Lawyers don't usually ask their clients if they're innocent or guilty for out of court settlements. They base those on the strength of the case and the clients own decision on whether or not to plead innocent or guilty.

Cases of property or civil and commercial law are different from criminal law. In those the lawyers job is to find a way in which their client can take advantage of the current system of law. You can accuse those lawyers of being greedy and corrupt but what do you expect? They're no Kings.

Fallenhunter:


Lawyers don't usually ask their clients if they're innocent or guilty for out of court settlements. They base those on the strength of the case and the clients own decision on whether or not to plead innocent or guilty.

Cases of property or civil and commercial law are different from criminal law. In those the lawyers job is to find a way in which their client can take advantage of the current system of law. You can accuse those lawyers of being greedy and corrupt but what do you expect? They're no Kings.

Before going to the court to defend a client a lawyer must first ask his client to tell him exactly what happened and from a client's statement a lawyer would know the truth(if his or her client is guilty or innocent) of a matter.
Some greedy lawyers would make a fool of themselves by defending a guilty client at the expense of the victim (like in the case of the land grabber cited above)even after hearing the truth.Such Lawyers won't make heaven.

Love4God:

A lawyer defending a criminal (land grabber, etc) that they own a property when they know that the criminal(land grabber) is not the actual owner is not a noble thing.
If a king defends a criminal (land grabber)at the expense of the real land owner after knowing the truth can that king be referred to as a noble king?

Even serial killers have lawyer representing them and fighting their case. They can be fighting for acquittal (if they believe their client is innocent) or fighting for life in prison or mental hospital as opposed to firing squard or death by lethal injection.

It is the law that every man must be defended. The lawyer is not the problem. They are merely following the law and practising their vocation

stonecoldcafe:


Even serial killers have lawyer representing them and fighting their case. They can be fighting for acquittal (if they believe their client is innocent) or fighting for life in prison or mental hospital as opposed to firing squard or death by lethal injection.

It is the law that every man must be defended. The lawyer is not the problem. They are merely following the law and practising their vocation

Pleading for leniency on behalf of a client is different from taking sides with a land grabber to steal someone else's property.

Angelawhite:


I’m not a lawyer but your submission is stupid. Why take a criminal to court if there will be no lawyers in court ? Why take him to court if you’ve already condemned him guilty ? Do you think judges are paid to declare someone guilty by listening to one side of the story ?

The answer is straight! Many people have been convicted of crimes they did not commit. Until you’re proven to be guilty, you remain innocent in the eyes of law.

You lacked comprehension or you are fucking stupid.Read my response to Kingkun's comment on this thread.Your submission is stupid and not mine.
Sorry for the belated response .

How can this young Ladd seduce a 54 years old man.
Fear God oooo this man