4 ms·
Em, surely the idea would be to get poor people to have a defence as good as rich people, not dragging rich people down. And, its says nothing good that its cle
by alan_cx 14y ago
Em, surely the idea would be to get poor people to have a defence as good as rich people, not dragging rich people down. And, its says nothing good that its clear that there is a difference in out come depending on wealth. If some one is innocent, then that should be the out come regardless of money.
Further, defendants are going up against the might of the state, US or other wise. Surely all defendants should have a defence equal of the state, other wise, well, you don't have any justice to speak of at all.
I cant understand why this is not making people want to argue for non rich people to have a decent defence in court.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago>I cant understand why this is not making people want to argue for non rich people to have a decent defence in court. It's because that would break the system. There are over two million inmates in the United States. There is no known or obvious way to provide a reasonable defense for that many defendants in any cost effective manner. A single good lawyer gets paid six figures. A criminal trial lasts several years through all the appeals. There are millions of accused. Do the math. It's just not happening. The only way to fix it is to drastically reduce the number of accused so that each can be allocated more resources. So either we need to develop some magic to drastically reduce the number of crimes people commit, or we need to prosecute drastically fewer criminals, or we need to drastically reduce the number of things common people can be prosecuted for. Make your choice.
- Encosia 14y agoI agree with your overall point, but public defenders get paid low to mid five figures. In fact, many lawyers do not make six figures. The median attorney salary in most areas is much lower than you'd think.