4 ms·

Someone needs to make the argument that if the defense attorney does not have the same budget per case as the prosecutor that it's essentially like not having a

Someone needs to make the argument that if the defense attorney does not have the same budget per case as the prosecutor that it's essentially like not having an attorney. The government wants it both ways. Corporations are people and money = speech. However, if you're poor, and have no money to defend yourself, it doesn't matter because the government essentially gives you a few dollars. They're giving you a FRACTION of a lawyer. I don't want a court appointed attorney. If I can't afford a lawyer the courts should give me a budget to hire my own lawyer.

Latteland 8y ago
I agree that when there is no time to do anything for the case, that this should be a strong aspect of a challenge to a conviction. I don't know about the same budget though, what about OJ Simpson's huge defense team vs the state. Those people basically have no defense, and I think if there is no budget for adequate defense, then you cannot prosecute them. I need to find out how my own large city fares in this scenario of public defender time.
- burtonator 8y ago
  True.. the reverse is true too. If a defendant wants to spend more than the state the defendant should be required to make the difference vs they are spending.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    Then the state has the incentive to fund the prosecutor's office to 0% because they can make defendants pay for it as soon as they want to defend themselves at all, and prosecutors get the incentive to create massive administrative burdens because every dollar a defendant spends dealing with their obstructionism is another dollar they get from the defendant. You also screw over the poor because now their defense costs are doubled (on top of the obstructionism) when they couldn't afford them to begin with. And if a defendant spends $50,000 to successfully prove that it was someone else, now they have to pay $50,000 to the prosecutor's office for falsely accusing them. Unless the prosecutor only gets the money if they win, in which case we get a whole new set of problematic incentives on the other side (make up evidence to win major cases or your office goes bankrupt), and we're back to the original problem where the rich get away with everything by outspending the government and then don't have to pay because they got away with it.
anticensor 8y ago
Corporations are legal persons, however, they have less rights and responsibilities (arguably less restrictions also) than natural persons.
trhway 8y ago
i wonder how about if defense is to be treated equally, i.e. say have half the law enforcement budget allocated for the defense.
candiodari 8y ago
Oh don't worry about that. The prosecution also doesn't get any budget at all to prosecute these people. They get the large advantage that the judge defaults to believing them though. So states, despite directly behaving untrustworthy, trust themselves and make these people the victims of that assumption of trustworthiness ... Corporations aren't involved, this is criminal law.

Latteland 8y ago

I agree that when there is no time to do anything for the case, that this should be a strong aspect of a challenge to a conviction. I don't know about the same budget though, what about OJ Simpson's huge defense team vs the state. Those people basically have no defense, and I think if there is no budget for adequate defense, then you cannot prosecute them. I need to find out how my own large city fares in this scenario of public defender time.

burtonator 8y ago
True.. the reverse is true too. If a defendant wants to spend more than the state the defendant should be required to make the difference vs they are spending.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  Then the state has the incentive to fund the prosecutor's office to 0% because they can make defendants pay for it as soon as they want to defend themselves at all, and prosecutors get the incentive to create massive administrative burdens because every dollar a defendant spends dealing with their obstructionism is another dollar they get from the defendant. You also screw over the poor because now their defense costs are doubled (on top of the obstructionism) when they couldn't afford them to begin with. And if a defendant spends $50,000 to successfully prove that it was someone else, now they have to pay $50,000 to the prosecutor's office for falsely accusing them. Unless the prosecutor only gets the money if they win, in which case we get a whole new set of problematic incentives on the other side (make up evidence to win major cases or your office goes bankrupt), and we're back to the original problem where the rich get away with everything by outspending the government and then don't have to pay because they got away with it.

anticensor 8y ago

Corporations are legal persons, however, they have less rights and responsibilities (arguably less restrictions also) than natural persons.

trhway 8y ago

i wonder how about if defense is to be treated equally, i.e. say have half the law enforcement budget allocated for the defense.

candiodari 8y ago

Oh don't worry about that. The prosecution also doesn't get any budget at all to prosecute these people. They get the large advantage that the judge defaults to believing them though. So states, despite directly behaving untrustworthy, trust themselves and make these people the victims of that assumption of trustworthiness ... Corporations aren't involved, this is criminal law.