5 ms·

Sadly public defenders are in wildly short supply, some articles I’ve read even describe it as a crisis. They simply can’t keep up with the caseloads.

LgWoodenBadger 2y ago
We should use the same mechanism we use to fill jury pools.
stainablesteel 2y ago
which leads to another problem, if we can't supply them, we need to reinvent our court system to become more realistic for people to defend their own case without having to worry about the nitpicks of "oh you didn't just say that did you now you're in more trouble you should have had a lawyer" laws aren't difficult to read nor understand, its however very tedious to make sure you're not missing something important from some chapter of a book you were unaware of. understanding the history of how cases TEND to be prosecuted and dealt with is another whole cultural side of things that are just not obvious to the layman. and this kind of information can and should be more accessible to people currently being processed through the system i think in the age we currently live in this is a realistic goal for improvement that would also humanize the process quite a lot
- tiahura 2y ago
  As a lawyer, I feel like your comment is reflective of the general misunderstandings around this issue. Sit through a docket or two and you come to a few conclusions. 1. They're all guilty. This is a corollary of: prosecutors like shooting fish in a barrel, not prosecuting cases where they might have to actually work. 2. The role of the defense lawyer in 99% of these cases is to keep them from disrupting the proceedings. 3. Probation / alternative sentences don't work. A good horsewhipping in the town square and 90 hard labor on the farm would be a much more effective way to get through to these people (and thus ultimately more humane).
  - carapace 2y ago
    Even if what you're saying is true (and I grew up with dudes like you're describing) it's extremely important that those folks get due process. If we (the non-criminals) don't hold up the ideals of civilization then we lose the right to perform "justice" on these offenders, eh? I've heard dudes say, "the cops are just another gang", due process is how we make that not true. Further, a lot of the people who can't control themselves are /also/ victims: lead in the water and air, moms who took drugs during pregnancy (the most out-of-control kid I knew back in the day was a "crack baby", he was neurologically damaged before he was born.) Whippings and forced farm labor (you realize you're describing slavery?) are not a solution to criminality.
    - tiahura 2y ago
      people who can't control themselves are /also/ victims: We tried that approach for the last 60 years. Sit through a docket to witness for yourself its efficacy.
      - FireBeyond 2y ago
        Corporal and capital punishment don't reduce crime. All they do is give people - often people who have no involvement or had no impact from the crime - the feeling of vengeance. Except it's the criminal justice system, not the criminal vengeance system.
      - carapace 2y ago
        > We tried that approach for the last 60 years. Have we really? I'm no expert, I'm asking. In any event, two wrongs don't make a right. The kind of vindictive punishment you advocate is itself wrong. Let's look at systems that have managed to lower rates of recidivism?
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    Oof. There's another attorney in this thread who seems genuinely unsure why we should be devoting time, effort or energy into people who are "obviously probably guilty". Genuinely unsure might be stretching it too. "Complex criminal defense cases where there's a decent chance the person may not be guilty should get resources, everything else? Eh." Like... Law School 101. That attitude in an attorney is genuinely disappointing at best, frightening at worst. I work in a field where "compassion fatigue" and burnout are very very real things (after you administer Narcan to someone for the third time that week, or you go to the home of the person who calls 911 at 3am because they stubbed their toe several days ago and now it has a hangnail that's catching on their bedsheets and making it "difficult" to fall asleep)... but being blunt - the day those feelings overtake you is the day you should consider what you are doing and why you are doing it.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  > laws aren't difficult to read nor understand, its however very tedious to make sure you're not missing something important from some chapter of a book you were unaware of. Yea, as a non-lawyer, this is what would terrify me away from representing myself in court. Not whether I was guilty or not, but the fact that it's such a procedural gotcha-game: "Haha! You did not say Magical Incantation 1924 in front of a judge in response to the opposing counsel's Magical Incantation 266! You automatically lose!" Or "Haha! You didn't file a form 27B/6 in the right clerk's office before the right deadline! You automatically lose!"
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  > oh you didn't just say that did you now you're in more trouble you should have had a lawyer Yeah, there is so much absolutely farcical stuff that happens in our court systems that would make for champagne-tier black comedy, if it didn't affect people's lives so much. Accused: "I want a lawyer, dawg!" Police: No lawyer. In court... "I asked for a lawyer and they refused to let me get one." Prosecutor: "Your honor, the defendant asked the police for a lawyer dog, and knowing no canines that had passed the bar, they were unable to find one. This isn't their fault." Judge: "Sounds entirely reasonable to me. No issue here."
amalcon 2y ago
This is a common class of problem with this kind of system. The state level public defender offices are mandated to exist since Gideon v. Wainwright, but the courts aren't really in a position to dictate budgeting. Legislatures could e.g. require budget parity with the prosecutor's office, but largely don't want that because helping accused criminals is politically unpopular.

LgWoodenBadger 2y ago

We should use the same mechanism we use to fill jury pools.

stainablesteel 2y ago

which leads to another problem, if we can't supply them, we need to reinvent our court system to become more realistic for people to defend their own case without having to worry about the nitpicks of "oh you didn't just say that did you now you're in more trouble you should have had a lawyer" laws aren't difficult to read nor understand, its however very tedious to make sure you're not missing something important from some chapter of a book you were unaware of. understanding the history of how cases TEND to be prosecuted and dealt with is another whole cultural side of things that are just not obvious to the layman. and this kind of information can and should be more accessible to people currently being processed through the system i think in the age we currently live in this is a realistic goal for improvement that would also humanize the process quite a lot

tiahura 2y ago
As a lawyer, I feel like your comment is reflective of the general misunderstandings around this issue. Sit through a docket or two and you come to a few conclusions. 1. They're all guilty. This is a corollary of: prosecutors like shooting fish in a barrel, not prosecuting cases where they might have to actually work. 2. The role of the defense lawyer in 99% of these cases is to keep them from disrupting the proceedings. 3. Probation / alternative sentences don't work. A good horsewhipping in the town square and 90 hard labor on the farm would be a much more effective way to get through to these people (and thus ultimately more humane).
- carapace 2y ago
  Even if what you're saying is true (and I grew up with dudes like you're describing) it's extremely important that those folks get due process. If we (the non-criminals) don't hold up the ideals of civilization then we lose the right to perform "justice" on these offenders, eh? I've heard dudes say, "the cops are just another gang", due process is how we make that not true. Further, a lot of the people who can't control themselves are /also/ victims: lead in the water and air, moms who took drugs during pregnancy (the most out-of-control kid I knew back in the day was a "crack baby", he was neurologically damaged before he was born.) Whippings and forced farm labor (you realize you're describing slavery?) are not a solution to criminality.
  - tiahura 2y ago
    people who can't control themselves are /also/ victims: We tried that approach for the last 60 years. Sit through a docket to witness for yourself its efficacy.
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      Corporal and capital punishment don't reduce crime. All they do is give people - often people who have no involvement or had no impact from the crime - the feeling of vengeance. Except it's the criminal justice system, not the criminal vengeance system.
    - carapace 2y ago
      > We tried that approach for the last 60 years. Have we really? I'm no expert, I'm asking. In any event, two wrongs don't make a right. The kind of vindictive punishment you advocate is itself wrong. Let's look at systems that have managed to lower rates of recidivism?
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  Oof. There's another attorney in this thread who seems genuinely unsure why we should be devoting time, effort or energy into people who are "obviously probably guilty". Genuinely unsure might be stretching it too. "Complex criminal defense cases where there's a decent chance the person may not be guilty should get resources, everything else? Eh." Like... Law School 101. That attitude in an attorney is genuinely disappointing at best, frightening at worst. I work in a field where "compassion fatigue" and burnout are very very real things (after you administer Narcan to someone for the third time that week, or you go to the home of the person who calls 911 at 3am because they stubbed their toe several days ago and now it has a hangnail that's catching on their bedsheets and making it "difficult" to fall asleep)... but being blunt - the day those feelings overtake you is the day you should consider what you are doing and why you are doing it.
ryandrake 2y ago
> laws aren't difficult to read nor understand, its however very tedious to make sure you're not missing something important from some chapter of a book you were unaware of. Yea, as a non-lawyer, this is what would terrify me away from representing myself in court. Not whether I was guilty or not, but the fact that it's such a procedural gotcha-game: "Haha! You did not say Magical Incantation 1924 in front of a judge in response to the opposing counsel's Magical Incantation 266! You automatically lose!" Or "Haha! You didn't file a form 27B/6 in the right clerk's office before the right deadline! You automatically lose!"
FireBeyond 2y ago
> oh you didn't just say that did you now you're in more trouble you should have had a lawyer Yeah, there is so much absolutely farcical stuff that happens in our court systems that would make for champagne-tier black comedy, if it didn't affect people's lives so much. Accused: "I want a lawyer, dawg!" Police: No lawyer. In court... "I asked for a lawyer and they refused to let me get one." Prosecutor: "Your honor, the defendant asked the police for a lawyer dog, and knowing no canines that had passed the bar, they were unable to find one. This isn't their fault." Judge: "Sounds entirely reasonable to me. No issue here."

amalcon 2y ago

This is a common class of problem with this kind of system. The state level public defender offices are mandated to exist since Gideon v. Wainwright, but the courts aren't really in a position to dictate budgeting. Legislatures could e.g. require budget parity with the prosecutor's office, but largely don't want that because helping accused criminals is politically unpopular.