[Vision2020] The niceties of public defense

Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:31:35 EST

--part1_191.23e15bd9.2d2f4257_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tom et. al.

It may be ludicrous, it may be wrong, but tell me, is this statement true or 
not:  "If public defenders were pursuing all their cases aggressively, the 
courts could not handle all the work."

I would like to see a comparison of how many cases of similar kind are plea 
bargained by public defenders vs. how many go to trial when a well paid private 
attorney is representing a client.

We either should offer low income people facing court an attorney who can 
take the time and charge the taxpayer whatever he thinks is required to give a 
full defense, or regulate how much attorneys can charge in general, or low 
income people will often be at a disadvantage in our legal system, and will face 
jail when innocent at a much higher rate than the rich. 

It seems the principle of innocent till PROVEN guilty in court does not carry 
much weight in the minds of many: if you are arrested and in court there is 
an assumption of guilt.  Thus why the need for the state to spend a lot of 
money on the defense of the poor?  To insist that the poor should have the same 
access to an aggressive defense as the rich might imply law enforcement might be 
arresting innocent people, would it not?  And the thought that law 
enforcement are arresting innocent people is not pleasant to those who have a faith that 
our system of justice does not have serious flaws.

Ted

--part1_191.23e15bd9.2d2f4257_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
 Tom et. al.
 
 It may be ludicrous, it may be wrong, but tell me, is this statement tru=
e or not: &nbsp;"If public defenders were pursuing all their cases aggressiv=
ely, the courts could not handle all the work."
 
 I would like to see a comparison of how many cases of similar kind are p=
lea bargained by public defenders vs. how many go to trial when a well paid=20=
private attorney is representing a client.
 
 We either should offer low income people facing court an attorney who ca=
n take the time and charge the taxpayer whatever he thinks is required to gi=
ve a full defense, or regulate how much attorneys can charge in general, or=20=
low income people will often be at a disadvantage in our legal system, and w=
ill face jail when innocent at a much higher rate than the rich.=20
 
 It seems the principle of innocent till PROVEN guilty in court does not=20=
carry much weight in the minds of many: if you are arrested and in court the=
re is an assumption of guilt. &nbsp;Thus why the need for the state to spend=
 a lot of money on the defense of the poor? &nbsp;To insist that the poor sh=
ould have the same access to an aggressive defense as the rich might imply l=
aw enforcement might be arresting innocent people, would it not? &nbsp;And t=
he thought that law enforcement are arresting innocent people is not pleasan=
t to those who have a faith that our system of justice does not have serious=
 flaws.
 
 Ted</HTML>

--part1_191.23e15bd9.2d2f4257_boundary--