In Canadian criminal law proceedings...

[bunsen_h]

When the accused has pretty clearly done something insanely monstrous, and the defense lawyer spits out something so monstrously insanely monstrously insane that it would be far better just to say "he didn't do it, neener neener", who is responsible for that?  The defendant and his lawyer by consensus?  Would it be that the defendant has come up with it and the lawyer has to do what the defendant says?  (And the lawyer can't withdraw from the case?)  Surely a defense based on mental incompetence doesn't require that the lawyer lack mental competence?

Appalled.  Boggled.
 

Comments

[resonant.livejournal.com]

The lawyer knows his client is totally guilty, and is grasping at straws to present some semblance of a defence, knowing full well that the court will see it as completely stupid and without merit.

If a lawyer says, "My client is pleading not guilty, but he totally did it, and deserves the maximum", then the judge will be forced to declare a mistrial, and the defendant will walk free pending a new trial with new counsel. This way the prosecutor can crush the token argument, the trial can proceed, and they can get to the sentencing.

[ambiviolent.livejournal.com]

I agree, the argument is so nakedly stupid (because even if it were true, it doesn't excuse the terrible wounds and still is neglect - wouldn't you *drag* your kid to CHEO if they had such an extreme eating disorder)it's not a defence, it's a way to move things along.