We have, but there seems to be a view of the Bar Council that this case is “immoral” and therefore their members would not willingly defend those who have been charged. There appears to be peer and public pressure not to defend those involved.

Shane
That’s exactly the attitude that brought about punishment beatings by Republicans in Northern Ireland that in sone cases resulted in death. Is that the kind of Sinn Fein Society you’d like here?

That’s called vengeance – not justice.

Then that makes you no better then them Shane.

Micheal J, there are there are the lowlifes that carried out this vicious attack and then there are people like you who use this poor woman’s horrendous suffering and painful death for political point scoring. Nuff said.

Then that makes savages of us all. What separates these thugs from everyone else is that civilized people don’t behave like that. This was a horrific attack. No one should ever do that to another human being!

Read the story! They will have lawyers.

Tomy – I have read the story and hence my post. It appears that they will not be able to access bar council members and will have to rely on a court appointed legal team. The bar council is on the record as saying defending the alleged culprits is “immoral” so one imagines that there is considerable peer and public pressure on whoever the defence team is.

Her boyfriend who was attacked also identified them open and shut case hang the bastards

If you actually read the story you might see that they WILL have their day in court. They will have court-appointed lawyers.

This, more than anything is a statement by the local lawyers which says “such behaviour which has become much more common in India, is not acceptable”. That’s all there is to this.

John they still have to go to court for this, you cannot just convict people without court cases.

Tomy my comment is a response to people commenting here, not to the article.

Niall – ty for clarifying…

Mairtin
Are you suggesting that the Minister for Foreign Affairs calls in the Indian Ambassador. That might be a little foolish don’t you think?

They recently involved themselves in a situation which involved an Indian citizen – not the same thing.

Mairtin, the level of sex crimes here is nothing to be proud of either.

As an add on to what you said Billie, what do we do with the people who make these false claims?

False claims of the rape variety destroy lives all because of one selfish b*stards actions.

and you need to read the story – they will have lawyers.

Sorry you obviously don’t know anything about how the law works. Being drunk or on drugs is rarely, if ever used as a defence because the law won’t allow it. These men should receive a fair trial.

Justice needs to be equally applied no matter how dispicable the crime is. It fails if you allow situations like this exist where justice is a la carte depending on the crime and, say, other factors such as the financial standing of the perpetrators. You can end up with a miscarriage of justice which is no justice for anybody – particularly the victim and their family.

There are few people even in the most trivial of situations and even those who admit guilt who do not offer mitigating circumstances. It’s human nature. All a defence lawyer will do is offer these mitigating circumstances or “excuses”. It’s up to the judge and jury to accept or reject these.

@Brian Daly. Is that true? Just flipping through the newspaper I see the alcohol excuse brought up in defence and judges saying ”ah hes a fine lad, no prior offences, just the drink, we let him go this time so…” Seems to be a pretty solid defence this side of the world at least

I have certainly read of it as being offered as a mitigating factor by a defence lawyer and it ends up in the narrative that you read, see and hear in news reports. It’s up to the judge and jury to decide when establishing guilt and sentencing.

Let’s be candid, in this country we are quite happy to allow, for example, “the drink” to be used as an excuse for multiple personal failings from the trivial upwards. It’s not surprising it’s used as an excuse for more serious crimes. I don’t believe that at the serious end of the scale that drink/drugs is accepted as an ‘excuse’ for a crime.

Justice does require everything to be taken into account when establishing guilt.

A mitigating factor is not a defence. It is simply taken into consideration when sentencing. It does not influence the decision of whether a person is guilty or not.

The death penalty can never be justified. Life behind bars is a far worse sentence than a quick ending. The death penalty is little more than state sponsored murder and only hurts the family of the executed. And that is before taking account of the numerous times innocent people have been executed in error. As for the lawyers refusing to represent them they should all be disbarred. Until it goes to trial there is no way of knowing how strong the evidence is against them or if they even did it.

Jonathan
I’m sure you would need psychological treatment if you witnessed an execution in Saudi Arabia which are conducted in public squares. The executioner is usually adept enough to remove the head in one go but sometimes it has to be hacked six or seven times with the victim screaming. Should I continue or does that change your mind?

I don’t know, this seems like a pretty decent case that deserves the death penalty. However you want to see it, a state sponsored murder, or justice, in my opinion, it is the only option.

The death penalty is a deterrent for future rapists and sexual assaulters.

I imagine that if the penalty for rape was death, and not lengthy jail time with a possibility of parole it would decrease the amount of sexual assault cases there is.

As for the families, in any rape case, I think knowing their son/daughter was a suspect in a rape case hurts them just as much.

Haha well I can certainly agree with that.

Hmmmm hard choice, take the death penalty or sit in jail for the rest of my life in a small cell…..

If these people have no problem going out and doing this, and they knew they were going to get the death penalty, then what have they got to lose but taking their actions further?

I don’t really know if that would justify people’s reasoning to rape and commit even more crime.

Death penalty in India hasn’t been used in the past 8 years with the exception of the one person found guilty of the Mumbai terrorist attacks. It is reserved for the “rarest of rare” crimes.

No civil society allows women to be raped and murdered on the streets and no civil society should allow capital punishment . Two wrongs do not make a right.

What separates us from the animals if we take away human rights? We should not stoop to their level.

Innocent until proven guilty. The Indian courts need to get the job done here. These solicitors are a disgrace.

I’m usually all for sharing opinions Peter, but yours is just plain wrong. You can’t execute someone without a fair trial. If you do, you are also an animal. You are the one who needs “catch on to yourself”.

Unfortunately they do have the right to representation no matter how horrendous the crime. Even Anders Brevik got representation in Norway last year and I think his crimes were every bit as awful as what happened here.

The may have no real defence but until they are tried in a court of law and convicted then they are still entitled to due process. This is the price we pay for living in a supposed civilised society. What’s the alternative?

If they don’t get a proper trial they could end up getting off! Someone has to present a defense!

Conor would you be so adamant if it was a member of your family………

That’s the point. Universal rights should not be dependent on emotion. These men – presumed innocent – have a right to representation. If lawyers are failing to do their duty, they should be sanctioned.

Conor Gallagher. I also thought that defence lawyers were not allowed to refuse a case. But maybe it’s different in India, though India has inherited its justice system from the British as did we. The article does seem to suggest that if no lawyer from the registered pool will take the case then the government will step in to appoint one. So it seems that the defendants will get their day in court. I don’t think these men should get the death penalty. They should get a whole of life sentence and spend the rest of their lives (which I sincerely hope will be miserable) rotting in prison.

I’m not too sure about this but if everyone refuses to defend them or appointed lawyers do not defend in a proper manner is there a possibility of a mistrial or no trial at all? And if so what are the results then? No charge. I agree with you on your statement this is the system we abide by.

Green Monkey – that old chestnut always comes out. If it was a member of my family then I would obviously want to see these guys hung, drawn and quartered. There are other painful, slow punishments that I would feel justified in applying also.

But if it were a member of my family I would obviously be subject to the kind of emotions which makes it very difficult to see the situation with full clarity. I would have complete tunnel vision towards hoping for vicious and painful punishment.

While the voice of the victim and those effected obviously deserves to be heard – they are simply not objective voices.

You appear confused:
The Moon http://www.universetoday.com/20583/what-is-the-moon-made-of/
Duty of Defence lawyers (see para 11)
counselhttp://defensewiki.ibj.org/index.php/Standards_of_Professional_Conduct_and_Etiquette_for_Lawyer_India

Capital punishment will not prevent this from happening again. Ask any country with capital punishment.

You need a trial to ensure you’ve caught the actual criminals and then you can do whatever the law permits. Obvious. What happens if one of your trigger happy execution squads gets the wrong person?

The rate of theft is very low in Saudi Arabia because they know if you steal you lose your hand. That’s a way more powerful deterrent than community service, few weeks behind bars, and a bar record.

Peter, yes you are correct but to find out who exactly did the crime you need to put them on trial.

Bad comparison there. Saudi Arabia is a despotic kleptocracy. Basically it’s a family business masquerading as a country where the aristocracy can do whatever they want. Pre-revolutionary France was egalitarian by comparison.

There may not be a defence but the point is that there needs to be a process and that process needs to be run in a consistent and fair manner so that justice is done. Ultimately these men may plead guilty and face the sanction for what was a disgusting crime. And if they plead not guilty then the process will most likely find then guilty as there is an eye-witness to what happened.

However your alternative whereby people don’t get a trial and instead get some form of mob justice is hardly a model of justice that anybody would want to live by. This may be a open and shut case but very few cases are like that.

Life without parole in solitary.