Is there no depth of vileness that some people won't sink to?

[sandyRoe]

Here's an example

http://uk.news.yahoo....-posts-124921397.html

[tonyav]

sandy imo just when you think that scum like him could get no lower some other scum comes along and proves me wrong.

[daftgrandad]

Unfortunately people such as this are allowed access to cyberspace.
In years gone by they would have been "dealt with" and summary justice
handed down.

[daftgrandad]

To qualify the above:-"A bl00dy good hiding"

[Smowball]

I think that the 'person' who posted such vile things should be simply left in a room with the girls family for an hour or two...................

[commoner]

Defending solicitor David Edwards said........
"He did seem genuinely remorseful and regretful for what he had done."

How do people sleep at night after defending scum like him?....

[andy-hughes]

Oh gawd, here we go again ...

The downside of a free speech society with access to mass comunication, is that everyone has the same access, including people who understand little beyond their immediate circumstances.

The concept of actions having consequences are simply beyond people like this.

The onloy way to deal with it is to let it go - to do any other hurst your head.

Of course it is vile and horrible, but it is part of the price we pay to allow me to do this - express an opinion on a website that can be read around the world.

commoner - the answer to your point is that our legal system provides everyone with a defence. Failure so to do would mean the innocent, along with the ghuilty, fast-tracked to pubishment with no chance to put their side of the story.

That way lies the sort of vigilante justice that this man almost experienced, and no, it is not valid or justified at all, ever.

[Octavius]

He did something which is vile, insensitive and offensive. He was drunk and copy and pasted some "jokes" to facebook, which presumably in his stupor he thought was funny and a good idea at the time.

Without knowing him personally it could easily be lodged as a massive drunken mistake, or demonstrative of his dislodged psychology and immorality.

Do you know him that well? Have you never done something when you were blind drunk that you deeply regret?

I don't think social media or texting was around in my days of debauchery, but I certainly remember being horrible to people and offensive. But that is not the mark of me.

[boxtops]

there's been a thread about this one already today...

[ummmm]

That was just a bickering match, mainly.

[commoner]

Andy..My question was not whether such scum should have a defence...of course they should....it was how do defence lawyers sleep at night doing it... ..surely individuals have a choice as to whether they take a case like that....one would hope so..

Maybe the certain knowledge that they won't win might help...plus the big fat fee of course....mmmm....

[sir.prize]

sandyRose . . . in total agreement. These comments are coming from grown people; persons who should know better. They are either just attention-seekers or they do genuinely have a mental 'up top'.

It's not only unknowns who 'wanna be a sensation' with their abusive and offensive comments. Yesterday, on a thread similar to this, I was labelled an idiot when discussing the pathetic Tweets of a controversial 'comedian' who knows no boundaries for his vulgar outbursts.

Strange how the Sun newspaper today reports on the guy who has been sentenced to 12 weeks but the newspaper fails to mention one of its own columnists who did very much the same thing on Twitter.

sandy - I am sure you know to whom I refer.

Signed 'disgusted' - but definitely not an idiot.

[andy-hughes]

commoner - were i a defence solicitor i would have no trouble at all sleeping.

You do not have to be a believer of a defendent, or even think his crime is defensible, in order to put forward a dispassionate legal argument.

All yoou need is to believe passionately that our legal system is based on checks and balancces, and defence is as valid as prosecution, and enacting a defence enables our legal system to survive and thrive.

If i were part of that process, which underlines our concepts of freedom and justice for all, I would sleep just fine.

[Davethedog]

Totaly agree with Andy. Free speech means just that, once upon a time he would have said such a thing in the pub and then told shut up or worse.

A vile man with vile comments, but at what point do you say you can say this but not that. If I post something that offends you, should I be imprisoned or vica versa? Of course not and neither should this bloke.

I think Smowball has the right idea.

[ummmm]

Doesn't mean he's not vile.

[sir.prize]

Correct ummmm.

Wonder why when 50 people arrived at his house, police promptly stepped in to protect him?

[ummmm]

Just because I think he's vile doesn't mean I think he should get his head kicked in.

[Zeuhl]

^
Because 'the system' is hard wired to protect above all else its own processes.

That's why it is particularly unforgiving of perjury or indeed, idiots who take the law into their own hands

[commoner]

Andy....there is no doubting the validity of your post , and I really do believe in the British Judicial process....I guess I will have to remain content in the knowledge that could never be a defense lawyer...not if it meant representing the likes of this person....
Maybe smow has the right idea....but there again I couldn't do that either....though if it was my kid..???

[andy-hughes]

No, smo does not have the right idea, as I have opined on here many many times.

Revenge by relatives of parents is perfectly understandable, but it is the thin end of a very basty wedge.

We must persevere with the legal punishments we have, and know that, flawed as they are, they are far preferable than letting the Self-Righteous Brothers loose - that way likes anarchy.

[FredPuli43]

Commoner, had you, in fact, been trained as counsel you would not lose sleep, any more than you would as a doctor in wartime who saved the life of an enemy soldier who had just been killing innocent civilians, or his comrades. Your training would be that your duty is to whoever is next in line to defend, or next on your operating table. And in practice, that's exactly how you proceed.

It's not for counsel to decide the guilt of the man he defends. That's what the jury is for. And you wouldn't be long in practice before you met clients who you'd be very loathe to meet otherwise. And by ten years you'd have met the vilest of the vile and be defending them. But the vilest of the vile are as entitled to justice as the nicest of the nice.And what's more you'd find that some of the'vilest' had been the victims of mismanagement, to put it politely, by the police, already set upon the idea that they were guilty.

Now, you may say trial by police opinion, or public opinion, is ideal. But the greatest satisfaction as defence counsel, is getting the acquittal, which justice and the client deserve. (When you're prosecuting, you get the same satisfaction in getting a conviction against the odds, too)

And if the man goes down, in spite of your best efforts, you accept equally that justice has been done, for the jury have, properly directed, decided he 's guilty. The worst thing is, whatever the result, to think that you could have done much better. That might give you sleepless nights.