15-11-2003 23:44									#1
	Rich versus poor in American justice system. Increase Your PM Length

So why should poor people accused of a crime, risk being sentenced for something they did not commit, just because they cannot afford an effective, thorough defense that cannot be adequately provided through a public defense team?


Where is the justice in our system if upper-class elite can afford multi-million dollar, expert, thorough, defense teams that can buy them an acquittal, even if they might have actually committed the crime?

	15-11-2003 23:50									#2
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I assume you are asking these things rhetorically?

	15-11-2003 23:51									#3
	Tired of ads?

What, you expect the government to hire Johnny Cochran for every defendant?

	16-11-2003 00:37									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: American justice system

	16-11-2003 00:39									#5
	Put an end to popups!

MrFun - the only possible solution is to disallow attorneys for ANYONE. Which means everyone will be equally vulnerable to being convicted unfairly.

Why do people always think that in order to fix an inequality, it is ok to just tear down those who have an advantage?

	16-11-2003 00:44									#6
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Why do people always think that in order to fix an inequality, it is ok to just tear down those who have an advantage?

Becuase they shouldn't have an advantage in an area which is suposed to be EQUAL? That sounds like a good reason why.

	16-11-2003 00:57									#7
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Becuase they shouldn't have an advantage in an area which is suposed to be EQUAL?

No one ever said you are supposed to have equal quality of your counsel. That would simply be impossible.

Should everyone be forced to take the state defense counsel?

	16-11-2003 01:01									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Should everyone be forced to take the state defense counsel?

How about only in cases where one side has to?

	16-11-2003 01:04									#9
	Get a bigger avatar today!

There is a vast difference between the normal range of competency within lawyers, and the ability of one defendent to have one l;awyer and another to have the entire resources of a law firm with investigators and so forth behind them..then it is not an issue of "good" lawyer vs "bad", but one of resources.

And I would have no problem with forcing a systemin which the poorest man had the same level of competent advise as a rich man..if anything, it would surely make the rich think several times before they committed a crime, knowing their chances were as poor as those of the, well, poor.

	16-11-2003 01:32									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The inequality between rich and poor in our justice system means that poorer people are less likely to get a fair trial, simply because they cannot afford an effective defense team that the upper-class can afford.

	16-11-2003 02:19									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The poor get relatively fair trials (barring ones in which trully outrageous things happen, which are a minority), since most DA's don't spend vast resources on your normal case. The things is, the rich don;t get fair trials, given the resource they can spend on thier own behalf vs. what the state decides to spend againt them.

	16-11-2003 03:11									#12
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Should everyone be forced to take the state defense counsel?

I'll be there'd be a marked increase in the quality of state defense attornies.

	16-11-2003 03:30									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: There is a vast difference between the normal range of competency within lawyers, and the ability of one defendent to have one l;awyer and another to have the entire resources of a law firm with investigators and so forth behind them..then it is not an issue of "good" lawyer vs "bad", but one of resources.

The state has plenty of resources as well. However, they pick and choose which cases they stress. Unlike a law firm, which can reject defending someone, the state cannot. Seeing as there are limited resources, the state will engage in a sort of 'triage'.

quote: And I would have no problem with forcing a systemin which the poorest man had the same level of competent advise as a rich man

The problem is that the only way to do so is force everyone takes the state attorney. Aside from possibly being a violation of Constitutional rights, you'd severly have to increase the budgets of the defense attornies. More taxes in order to let 'the guilty go free', especially if they are rich and can afford attorney's themselves? Can you imagine selling that to the voters?

quote: I'll be there'd be a marked increase in the quality of state defense attornies

Only for a few years (when most of the private defense atty's try to get a job the state). Then the lack of pay will result in less people in law schools that will specialize in litigation. Then the quality will drift down again. After all, the money drives most people to litigation anyway (those that want to do to simply defend 'innocent people' aren't all that common, which is why you have enticements for public interest law).

	16-11-2003 05:32									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Should everyone be forced to take the state defense counsel?

Seems fair. The people are forced to take the state prosecutor.

	16-11-2003 06:35									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: The people are forced to take the state prosecutor.

There's an idea, let's privatize prosecution .

	16-11-2003 12:24									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui What, you expect the government to hire Johnny Cochran for every defendant?

Let them.

	16-11-2003 12:46									#17
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

That's a "natural" problem in a fully party-run criminal trial that is not based on material truth. Simplified, what is not introduced or raised by one party doesn't exist for the outcome. The judge has no correcting function.

This works if both parties are equal. When they are not, there is little saving a poor defendant from a prosecution that wants to win at all cost.

But for most people, trial by jury has been replaced with trial by plea bargain anyway.

	16-11-2003 12:47									#18
	Suffering from ads?

communism is the only way.

all hail communism!

	16-11-2003 12:54									#19
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler This works if both parties are equal. When they are not, there is little saving a poor defendant from a prosecution that wants to win at all cost.

I thought either side can bring up evidence as long as it is ruled admissible by the judge?

	16-11-2003 13:04									#20
	Put an end to popups!

Sure they can bring it up, but how do you get it? If you have it, will your overworked counsel present it properly (or not at all)? And how much chance do you stand against a prosecution that throws enough resources at you?

Maybe two years ago, there was a big fat scandal about DNA labs. If they simply produce the required evidence, you have to be lucky enough to have other (cheap) evidence, like an Alibi.

	16-11-2003 13:49									#21
	Put an end to popups!

So we are back to a resources problem, as GePap contended previously.

This, too, is applicable wrt defendents with deep pockets, such as Microsoft.

	16-11-2003 14:05									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

But in those anti-trust civil cases, the prosecution has just as great pockets .

I assume we are talking mostly criminal cases here, since there is where this issue really matters. The poor don't get sued much in civil cases, because, obviously, they don't have the money to pay the judgments.

	16-11-2003 14:09									#23
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The real crime is that over half of the court cases in a year are on victimless crimes, and drug violators who pose no threat to society if those crimes were legalized. All of the public defendants have way to much work and dont give a crap about the defending people who maybe have commited real crimes.

	16-11-2003 14:11									#24
	Increase Your PM Length

And the poor don't sue either, cause they will end up with the costs, even when they win.

	16-11-2003 14:15									#25
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler And the poor don't sue either, cause they will end up with the costs, even when they win.

Ah, yes... good point.

Unless it's a class action. Or some lawyer feels some social need and will just take a % of the claim, if they win.

	17-11-2003 09:50									#26
	Put an end to popups!

Increase the pay for the state defenders. If they are better paid, then more lawyers would be willing to do this job.

Or find ways of incentives to reward those who do better as a public defender.

No need to force eeveryone to have a public defender, which simply necourages mediorcacy.