I'm reminded of an infamous case in 1986 - the Anita Cobby rape and murder.

Here there were 5 accused and all were convicted. I wouldn't have minded (at the time) if all five were hanged in Hyde Park and then drawn and quartered. But hey times change.

I also find it a little strange that in a mysogynistic and paternal society such as India, this case has created so many headlines and so much anger. A good thing really, but given the attitude and treatment of women in India, particularly rural areas, it seems to be an isolated outcry.

Thanks for the article Sophie

I agree with Geoffrey Edwards' comment. I think it is shocking that a bar association thinks it is entitled to pick and choose which defendants are worthy of legal representation. If lawyers feel squeamish about defending clients, they have no business being admitted to the bar. And what makes them think this particular rape case is different to all the other? The publicity? I suspect their assertions of morality are just a cover for their concerns about the bad publicity that could follow from taking on this case. And the ironic thing would be if their claims to morality led to a court finding that the defendants had been denied a fair trial.

I wonder if it could be as biased as the US court system when terrorism is involved.

A retrial for a murder suspect was recently ordered because
"there are special rules that govern a trial whenever a defendant is charged with "terrorism", and these rules are so permissive, so designed to ensure conviction, that it is inherently unfair to convict someone under these rules who is not charged with terrorism"

http://www.sott.net/article/254854-New-Yorks-top-court-highlights-the-meaninglessness-and-menace-of-the-term-terrorism

He was charged as a terrorist originally because allegedly his gang was terrorising the town.

Very disturbing business - from the crime itself to the reaction of the community and the defence lawyers.

The reason though for the "special treatment" is due the repeated constant failure of the Indian legal system from the coppers to the judges to deal adequately with rape and sexual violence which is endemic in many parts of India.

The system is under immense pressure to deliver the goods and to do so quickly. But really something far more fundamental and wide-ranging is what is really needed. Like equitable treatment and access to the law's protection.

Not bloody likely.

Tragic death of Miss Amnat desrves a fair trial, everyone agrees. This is probably the first case in thosands of years a low caste pack of men have raped a high caste woman. It is no wonder the lawyers and other high caste are after the capital punishment. The rule and law of India is dished out according to the Caste of the person, be it the victim or the killer. This concept was put to good use by the British in their dominions. The best example is Mohandas Karamchand (Mahathma Gandhi) who did work as a Magistrate in South Africa dishing out similar justice. Indian legals were widely used by the British. Killing of women from conception to death bed are part of the culture and is part of the baggage of overseas Indians. Please think of millions of low caste girls sexually assaulted by high caste men.

"Defence lawyers therefore ensure that any conviction is based on strong evidence."
They ensure that, in the adversarial system, by knowingly presenting false statements from the defendant and suppressing as much of the evidence that will help convict him as possible. I applaud the attorneys who refuse to participate in that hypocrisy when the consequences might lead to the freedom of these clearly dangerous thugs. Yes, I've looked at the evidence, that lawyers would try to exclude from the jury, that tells me they are thugs, and the refusal of the lawyers to help them avoid what's supposed to be justice confirms for me that my determinations are correct.
"But concerns about the trial process mean that the trial may be unfair, and that the ultimate verdict may rest on unstable evidentiary grounds."
Unstable evidentiary grounds are the norm in the adversarial system, where hearsay information is not allowed, no matter how credible the source. In inquisitorial systems where such evidence is judge by its credibility, and attorneys are not supposed to misrepresent the truth (not that you can be sure they won't), trials will much fairer to all concerned and especially to the victims that in the adversarial courts.

Sophie:
You are much, much kinder than I am. Unless there has been a major blunder in presenting the story, the quicker these ???! are deprived of life the better. That includes the 'teenager'.

As for 'innocent until proven guilty', what about the US Drone program where people assumed to be 'terrorists' are murdered, along with the innumerable 'collateral damage' deaths. This seems to me to be a far more urgent problem than the quality of trial that these ???! might get. ,

My introduction to india was this: I and my partner were aproached by a western woman journalist whos asked us to make sure that she got to her hotel safely if she negotiated the taxi from the airport. "Women often do not reach their destination when they get into a taxi at the airport - they are, more often than not, found at the bottom of some well somewhere". What followed was a nightmare of behaviour of Indian men towards my western woman traveling companion, behaviour that would be considered criminal in Australia. My recollections of India border on the gruesome. I do believe that sophie is right by saying these men will not get a fair trail because the mood is one of outrage and revenge, not of due process of law. The picture above says it all - where are the women? Men have no right to be in the majority on the front line of issues that are female gender sensitive. It is a country where a woman of any but untouchable worker, simply walking the streets, was unsafe.

I also believe that any juristiction, in consultation with it's national jurisprudence should be able to refer a case for trial under international law, to avoid the misdirection of justice that can come about because of politics or culture. In cases where clarity and transparancy are needed this may be a viable alternative approach to a fuller quality of justice from rule of law and due process.