Arbitration of Justice
Lawyers defending the indefensible, which is to say low-down, degraded, morally-challenged societal predators somehow always try to portray their clients as not entirely responsible for the carnage they mount. Victims of brutal assaults somehow must be responsible for what has occurred to them. They were, after all, in the wrong place at the right time. Or might that be the right place at the wrong time?
Ewan Lyttle, representing Yonis Awais Hassan, the driver of a car who with a 17-year-old accomplice who cannot be named under the Youth Justice Act, has argued that a woman whom the two robbed is herself responsible for the injury to her brain caused by the reckless driving that resulted when the driver attempted to dislodge the woman hanging on to the youth who took possession of a piece of jewellery she had advertised for sale.
In 2009, the two drove to a home in Orleans with the intention of stealing a diamond and sapphire bracelet that the woman had advertised on the UsedOttawa.com website. Things proceeded not quite according to plan when the woman, seeing her bracelet being taken without payment, chased the youth to the car and began "scratching and fighting" for re-possession of her property.
The driver claims to have panicked, and sped away, eyes on the road ahead, paying no attention to the fact that the woman was clinging to the youth seated in the car, demanding the return of her property. The lawyer for the defence of the two youths insisted that Hassan was not entirely blaming the victim for her misfortune, but that her actions were "legally relevant", to become a factor in sentencing.
The idea being that when Ontario Court Justice Lise Maisonneuve comes to the business of sentencing Hassan for aggravated assault and robbery, in February, this be taken into account. The victim having on her part recounted to Justice Maisonneuve her thoughts of suicide, living with a fractured skull as a result of the robbery and assault.
Her own lawyer has argued it was simply unfeasible that Hassan would be unaware that the woman was hanging on to the passenger as he sped recklessly away. "The impact on the victim and her family has been "catastrophic", she argued, feeling a jail sentence of 18 months to 2 years to be appropriate.
This is the judge, however, whose Ontario court roster is one replete with instances of seemingly excusing intolerable conduct on the part of predators and perpetrators; appearing to the interested onlooker on the basis of reports in the media, to be expressing compassion for the violators, while seeming to dismiss the agony of the victims.
And the attorney for the defence has argued that Hassan, who nobly aspires to becoming a youth worker co-operated nicely with police post-arrest, and should therefore receive no more than a 90-day jail sentence served on weekends, followed by probation.
All hail slick, conscienceless lawyers and their penitent clients, appearing before kindly, understanding arbiters of justice.
Ewan Lyttle, representing Yonis Awais Hassan, the driver of a car who with a 17-year-old accomplice who cannot be named under the Youth Justice Act, has argued that a woman whom the two robbed is herself responsible for the injury to her brain caused by the reckless driving that resulted when the driver attempted to dislodge the woman hanging on to the youth who took possession of a piece of jewellery she had advertised for sale.
In 2009, the two drove to a home in Orleans with the intention of stealing a diamond and sapphire bracelet that the woman had advertised on the UsedOttawa.com website. Things proceeded not quite according to plan when the woman, seeing her bracelet being taken without payment, chased the youth to the car and began "scratching and fighting" for re-possession of her property.
The driver claims to have panicked, and sped away, eyes on the road ahead, paying no attention to the fact that the woman was clinging to the youth seated in the car, demanding the return of her property. The lawyer for the defence of the two youths insisted that Hassan was not entirely blaming the victim for her misfortune, but that her actions were "legally relevant", to become a factor in sentencing.
The idea being that when Ontario Court Justice Lise Maisonneuve comes to the business of sentencing Hassan for aggravated assault and robbery, in February, this be taken into account. The victim having on her part recounted to Justice Maisonneuve her thoughts of suicide, living with a fractured skull as a result of the robbery and assault.
Her own lawyer has argued it was simply unfeasible that Hassan would be unaware that the woman was hanging on to the passenger as he sped recklessly away. "The impact on the victim and her family has been "catastrophic", she argued, feeling a jail sentence of 18 months to 2 years to be appropriate.
This is the judge, however, whose Ontario court roster is one replete with instances of seemingly excusing intolerable conduct on the part of predators and perpetrators; appearing to the interested onlooker on the basis of reports in the media, to be expressing compassion for the violators, while seeming to dismiss the agony of the victims.
And the attorney for the defence has argued that Hassan, who nobly aspires to becoming a youth worker co-operated nicely with police post-arrest, and should therefore receive no more than a 90-day jail sentence served on weekends, followed by probation.
All hail slick, conscienceless lawyers and their penitent clients, appearing before kindly, understanding arbiters of justice.
Labels: Justice, Life's Like That, Ottawa
posted by Pieface | 6:19 PM
2 Comments:
The lawyers are just doing their job. Regardless of what they believe in, they have to do what they are hired to do. Who would hire a lawyer that was not going to defend them? Your final point is incredibly ignorant in that you assume that the lawyers who defend the criminals are conscienceless. Like I said they are just doing their job.
Everyone is imbued with free will, including those who choose how they will earn their living. One always has the option of refusing to defend the indefensible. The accused, standing before their judges at Nuremberg used that argument too, that they were just doing their job.
Post a Comment
<< Home