3 ms·

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 n

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

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.