Lion in Winter

Because even the guilty are punished according to law, not according to lynch mob rule.

With lynch mob rule, you have no way to apply justice/punishment equally, and giving everybody a defense lawyer is one way to help accomplish that.

Think about what the legal system would be like without it. Think about all the favouritism, biases, prejudices, bribery and corruption, media influences, etc. etc. that would influence the "sentence" passed. You don't really want that I'm sure. And you don't want to be tried in China, where you might be shot for all sorts of things that you probably disagree with. The only way to prevent that is to have a legal procedure, not "summary justice".

As it is, these murderers will probably never get out of prison. Job done.

knockoff nige

Not a Judge Dredd fan then?

But I agree, of course. Motive and sanity need to be investigated. I remember a flat mate of mine was beaten up quite badly in a pub once and the guy who beat him was let off as he had a drug dependency. Didn't seem fair but we have to accept that we don't know all the facts until they are gathered. Might seem like a waste of time when it all turns out to be exactly as we saw it. But this right is for all of our protection.

Lion in Winter

Yes - it doesn't work out perfectly all the time, but it certainly beats the alternative.

Amazulu

Rule of law has to apply in cases like this

GarryP

Errr.....

rasen78

The act will certainly not be in doubt. However, the intent behind the act may well be and that is one of the reasons we have a justice system. To determine intent.

BadgeIsBack

Mens Rea.

Is that person guilty of Murder, manslaughter, Abh, gbh...

were they acting under duress....

were they negligent; or even reckless...?

rasen78

Exactly. Malice aforethought...mitigating circumstances...

From what I have read, these individuals pleaded not guilty, using some religious dogma (US and UK killing their people etc etc) as their mitigation, which is why it went to trial...As was their right...They have now been found guilty by a court of their peers and sentenced accordingly.

Yes, their act was heinous and irrefutable, but to deny them their right to a fair trial (even if it leaves most people with a bitter taste in their mouth) which is what they got, would also be wrong. IMO, the justice system has worked as it should do in this case.

chris955

Im surprised some are even questioning their right to a trial, we dont get to pick and choose who does and who doesnt receive a trial. Regardless of their crime it is their right in a civilised society.

Lion in Winter

And it's about more than these individuals. A fair trial with the same rules and protection for all protects all of us, the innocent and the guilty.

Hebe

Thank you for eloquently answering why the justice system is what it is and I couldn't agree more. A fair trial for everyone regardless of the crime is what makes us a civilised and democratic society (some will disagree with this) and some one has to do the defending, even when we see it as a undefendable crime.

Rest in Peace Fusilier Lee Rigby.

paulry

Those two arse wipes should have been sentenced to hang until they are dead

northernbird

As you are a law person, am I right in thinking that pleading not guilty actually attracts a higher sentence usually. I am sure someone once told me that if they had plead guilty the sentence wasn't likely to have been as high as it was if pleading not guilty. I may just have dreamt it of course

Hebe

It doesn't attract a higher sentence per se but pleading guilty can give the defendant a reduction in sentence due to a timely guilty plea