I hate people.
Hassan Nagi should not receive a harsh sentence for rapes, Sydney court hears

TAXI driver Hassan Nagi should not receive a harsh sentence for raping three women as he suffered a condition called "Don Juanism" which made him addicted to sex, his barrister said yesterday.

Clive Steirn SC also urged a District Court judge in Sydney to spare the sex predator a "crushing" sentence because he never bashed his victims while he was raping them.

"There was no gratuitous violence. None of the women was physically harmed. It's an important consideration," he said.

The submissions drew gasps from the public gallery, including from two of Nagi's victims. It also earned a rebuke from Judge James Bennett who said: "He doesn't get rewarded for not belting them."

Mr Steirn said Nagi, 37, from Bexley, had been diagnosed with Don Juanism after visiting brothels from the age of 20. The disorder was "a man's equivalent of nymphomania".

Article from February with details of the cases.

I still have no words. I actually Googled this, hoping it wasn't true, which was how I found the earlier article that just increased my RAGE.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	lemone 2009-05-27 08:03 pm UTC (link)
	For a while I boggled how that attorney must sleep at night, but then I realized he must be a needle dick misogynistic mystical shit bringing turd with meekcrob for brains and I was like "okay, so that's how." (Reply to this)(Thread)

	sheep 2009-05-27 08:08 pm UTC (link)
	I'm sure many lawyers make arguments for the sake of their clients that they may not themselves believe in. It's their job to protect their clients interests after all. It's one of the reasons I could never be a defence lawyer, that and I'm not smart enough. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	innocentsmith 2009-05-27 08:30 pm UTC (link)
	Yes, but do they have to make lunatic and deeply offensive arguments? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	indis_earfalas 2009-05-28 01:56 am UTC (link)
	Well actually. I knew a defence lawyer who used to do just that (the lunatic and deeply offensive arguments) occassionally, in the hopes that the client will lose. Deeply unethical and all that ... but he's now a furniture removalist (by choice), so yeah. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	lemone 2009-05-27 08:37 pm UTC (link)
	That's true, but I doubt anyone would make an argument so ...out there without believing/internalizing/what have youing it somewhat. Anyone else would see it's bound to have a snowball's chance in hell of working and would have stopped at the 'it's a condition, not his fault yadda yadda yadda' spiel. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sheep
2009-05-27 09:01 pm UTC (link)

I don't think so, we are talking about people who can knowingly defend murderers, rapists and paedophiles and the like, in the first place. And get them off. What's a few words?

It may not be that he believes them, but that he knows a lot of people have internalised fucked up views about rape. I'm not saying it's right, but it doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks his client should actually get off for those reasons, just that there is a chance some one else might believe it. If the thinks there is a snowballs chance, he may consider it his duty to go for it.

I'd say the fact that he thinks it might help should me more of an indication of just how messed up peoples views in general are, rather than the lawyers personal opinion.

Thankfully the Judge seemed more on the ball than most on this particular topic. With another judge, it might have actually worked. And I don't think it's that unlikely that some would be sucked in by that argument. It's not is fault, he's sick. He didn't actually hurt them, so it's not really any different than sex. These are arguments we unfortunately see fairly regularly, they aren't all that far out there.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

nights_mistress
2009-05-27 09:05 pm UTC (link)

I'm pretty sure he knew it didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding too. You don't get to be Senior Counsel if you're an idiot.

It's his job to make whatever argument he can, regardless of how spurious or deeply offensive he finds it. If his client instructs him "I want you to argue that I deserve a lesser sentence because I never bashed no-one" then he is obliged to argue that because it's his job to be his client's advocate. If barristers were limiting themselves to arguing cases that they believed strongly in, then we'd have a lot of worthy litigants unable to get legal representation because their case is something barristers find uninteresting or morally dubious.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

temaris
2009-05-28 09:52 am UTC (link)

Actually, a lawyer works for his client, and if the client insists that the lawyer make some asinine mitigation plea, the lawyer has to make the asinine mitigation plea. This is often easy to spot because the lawyer usually prefaces it with 'I am instructed by my client to say/ask/tell the court'...

Which is not to say it's impossible the lawyer is a dick: many are. But I know a couple of criminal defense lawyers and well, clients sometimes are just appalling, and want them to say stupid things, and if the lawyer can't talk them out of it, they're stuck :( And if the lawyers picked and chose who they accepted as clients, many miscarriages of justice would happen.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	kookaburra 2009-05-29 08:14 am UTC (link)
	Yeah, that's why I could never be a lawyer (my Aunt is, and tried to convince me that I'd like it). If you're a defense lawyer, you have this situation, and if you're a prosecutor, you have to nail people for violating laws, even if you think said laws are unconstitutional. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -