Quote:
Originally Posted by greyshep
Just my opinion, but that speech doesn't seem to cover any further territory than has already been referenced. I still see a distinct disconnect in the behavior of defense counsel in accepting a verdict and sentence. The items from the charter that were quoted above do not either.
This is the only possible one...
"12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."
However, potential punishments are known and decided on in a democratic fashion previous to any case as well, so I am not sure how "cruel and unusual" could apply.
|
Cruel and unusual means defence counsel is seeking sentences that are fairly consistent with established laws and precedents, taking into account many other sentencing factors:
There are a number of sentencing principles found in sections 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code:[6][7]
- The sentence must be proportionate to the nature of the offence.
- The sentence must be reduced or increased depending on the mitigating and aggravating factors (discussed more below).
- The sentence must be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences in similar circumstances, but it remains open to the sentencing judge to deviate from the range.[8]
- If the sentence is consecutive, it must not be unduly long or harsh.
- An offender should not be deprived of their liberty if less restrictive sanctions are appropriate.
- All available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered, with particular attention for aboriginal offenders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimin...ing_Principles
A defence lawyer's duty does not end the moment a guilty verdict is rendered.
Everyone who fights a speeding ticket, is almost always certainly guilty of the offence. Why not just accept the maximum penalty then?
Defending the indefensible? Lawyers on representing clients accused of nightmarish crimes
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014...ndy-charles-ng
http://www.americanbar.org/newslette...ntclients.html
http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/defense.html