3 ms·

I'm sure the "immigration law" in question was either simple evidence standards ("there's a difference between things you saw, and things somebody told you abou

I'm sure the "immigration law" in question was either simple evidence standards ("there's a difference between things you saw, and things somebody told you about"), or rules about what qualifies for refugee status. The thing is, if the court does appoint an attorney, the attorney will need to explain these same concepts to the child as part of preparing a defense.

shawn-furyan 11y ago
> if the court does appoint an attorney, the attorney will need to explain these same concepts to the child as part of preparing a defense. There are lightears of space between doing your best to see that someone who can't defend themselves in court has qualified representation (even if there are difficulties that the representative will face in conducting defense), and pitting the same person against an expert litigation team without a qualified advocate. The former situation is a good faith effort to give the defendant a fair trial. The latter situation is a sham trial.
- maxlybbert 11y ago
  I've served on a jury in one criminal case, and watched the beginning of another case without being on the jury. One thing that stood out was how few objections ever included a reason, and the ones that did were usually described in one word: attorney: "objection," judge: "sustained"/attorney: "objection, speculation," judge: "overruled." It felt mechanical. Based on how quickly the judges ruled, it was obvious they knew what the objection would be before the attorneys opened their mouths. I would be OK if the judge were to accept responsibility of allowing only acceptable questions, especially since the judge decides what's acceptable. Please note, I have no idea if a judge can accept that responsibility in an immigration hearing; but if they could, I would be fine with it. The obvious danger, in a criminal hearing, would be for the accused to say something that they weren't required to say, and that hurt their case. That is one obvious reason people have a right to an attorney. I don't know enough about immigration law to say whether that's a possibility. In a criminal case, you have a right to remain silent. You don't have that right in a civil case (you can punished for contempt, and the judge is allowed to assume the reason you want to remain silent is that the truth would hurt your case ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Refusal_to_testify_in_a_civil_case https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_Unite... )). I have no idea if you have the right to remain silent in an immigration hearing, but it wouldn't surprise me if the right is severely limited. If you have a right to remain silent in an immigration hearing, then it would be impossible to guarantee a fair hearing without providing an attorney.
- maxlybbert 11y ago
  I guess my point is, if you think that it's not possible to explain immigration law to children, then appointing a lawyer won't change that. If you think it's not possible to have a fair hearing without an attorney, I may agree with you, but I can imagine ways to a dress that. To be honest, there are several things in the legal system that I don't think should be resolved through an adversarial process. Immigration hearings are a good example.
  - shawn-furyan 11y ago
    Well, but that's part of the issue, isn't it? The whole point of a trial is that, at least in theory, the two sides of the scale are balanced. If you remove the balance aspect, then you remove the purpose of having a trial in the first place. I would say that these unbalanced trials are pretending toward fairness, fairness theater. If your primary concern is the cost of these proceedings, then don't argue for taking away only one of the costly, yet crucial, aspects of the trial [taxpayers already pay for the judges and the state's attorneys (both of whom are likely making much more than state appointed defense attorneys would be), so refusing to pay for defendant's attorneys doesn't save a heck of a lot of cost]. Rather get rid of the unfair trial altogether and make the thing an administrative proceeding. If you think a fair trial is justified, then you've got to provide qualified representation for those who can't come up with it themselves. That's just the minimum bar for fairness in an adversarial trial. Meet it, or get rid of the trial altogether. I don't have enough information to really have a strong opinion on whether these situations should be handled administratively or whether the state should provide attorneys. However, it does seem that the current solution is on the order of the most expensive possible solutions without managing to meet a minimum bar for fairness. It's a worst of both worlds compromise.

shawn-furyan 11y ago

> if the court does appoint an attorney, the attorney will need to explain these same concepts to the child as part of preparing a defense. There are lightears of space between doing your best to see that someone who can't defend themselves in court has qualified representation (even if there are difficulties that the representative will face in conducting defense), and pitting the same person against an expert litigation team without a qualified advocate. The former situation is a good faith effort to give the defendant a fair trial. The latter situation is a sham trial.

maxlybbert 11y ago
I've served on a jury in one criminal case, and watched the beginning of another case without being on the jury. One thing that stood out was how few objections ever included a reason, and the ones that did were usually described in one word: attorney: "objection," judge: "sustained"/attorney: "objection, speculation," judge: "overruled." It felt mechanical. Based on how quickly the judges ruled, it was obvious they knew what the objection would be before the attorneys opened their mouths. I would be OK if the judge were to accept responsibility of allowing only acceptable questions, especially since the judge decides what's acceptable. Please note, I have no idea if a judge can accept that responsibility in an immigration hearing; but if they could, I would be fine with it. The obvious danger, in a criminal hearing, would be for the accused to say something that they weren't required to say, and that hurt their case. That is one obvious reason people have a right to an attorney. I don't know enough about immigration law to say whether that's a possibility. In a criminal case, you have a right to remain silent. You don't have that right in a civil case (you can punished for contempt, and the judge is allowed to assume the reason you want to remain silent is that the truth would hurt your case ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Refusal_to_testify_in_a_civil_case https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_Unite... )). I have no idea if you have the right to remain silent in an immigration hearing, but it wouldn't surprise me if the right is severely limited. If you have a right to remain silent in an immigration hearing, then it would be impossible to guarantee a fair hearing without providing an attorney.
maxlybbert 11y ago
I guess my point is, if you think that it's not possible to explain immigration law to children, then appointing a lawyer won't change that. If you think it's not possible to have a fair hearing without an attorney, I may agree with you, but I can imagine ways to a dress that. To be honest, there are several things in the legal system that I don't think should be resolved through an adversarial process. Immigration hearings are a good example.
- shawn-furyan 11y ago
  Well, but that's part of the issue, isn't it? The whole point of a trial is that, at least in theory, the two sides of the scale are balanced. If you remove the balance aspect, then you remove the purpose of having a trial in the first place. I would say that these unbalanced trials are pretending toward fairness, fairness theater. If your primary concern is the cost of these proceedings, then don't argue for taking away only one of the costly, yet crucial, aspects of the trial [taxpayers already pay for the judges and the state's attorneys (both of whom are likely making much more than state appointed defense attorneys would be), so refusing to pay for defendant's attorneys doesn't save a heck of a lot of cost]. Rather get rid of the unfair trial altogether and make the thing an administrative proceeding. If you think a fair trial is justified, then you've got to provide qualified representation for those who can't come up with it themselves. That's just the minimum bar for fairness in an adversarial trial. Meet it, or get rid of the trial altogether. I don't have enough information to really have a strong opinion on whether these situations should be handled administratively or whether the state should provide attorneys. However, it does seem that the current solution is on the order of the most expensive possible solutions without managing to meet a minimum bar for fairness. It's a worst of both worlds compromise.