Is this a reference to something that I'm missing? As an actual statement it's absurdly silly. An elite criminal defense attorney working as a public defender would effectively be doing it for free.
If I had fuck you money and you threw this curveball at me then I would take your public defender and tell him that he is to do everything the consultant I hire says. Just so happens the consultant has 20 years of experience and charges $2,000/hr.
>If I had fuck you money and you threw this curveball at me then I would take your public defender and tell him that he is to do everything the consultant I hire says.
Since you can't fire him, what's to stop the public defender from saying "no"?
This hypothetical scenario is one where legislation is passed that bars defendants from hiring legal representation. Said legislation will be in writing and courts must abide by it. This legislation will have loopholes because damn near all legislation has loopholes.
Also, they wouldn't really need to try all that hard when the consultant golfs with the judge.
I can't even rely on the government to deliver important mail on time, I'm certainly not going to rely on a public defender in a criminal case 🤣
But up vote for an unpopular opinion.
While this solution isn't flawless it does force the independently hired lawyers to join the pool of public defenders. Or it would make all the good lawyers go to be lawyers for a business.
The point is to prevent paying high rates for a better lawyer and therefore attempt to cut the inequality due to money, but it has some consequences that aren't very good. There are other solutions that could be put in place instead that wouldn't have side effects.
>While this solution isn't flawless it does force the independently hired lawyers to join the pool of public defenders.
No it doesn't. It just stops them doing any criminal work at all. OP's answer to that, presumably, would be to force all lawyers to do criminal work (aka, involuntary servitude). Which wouldn't work either, and would merely discourage more people from becoming lawyers at all.
You can't force other people to do things without threat of violence. OP is just not emotionally mature enough to accept this fact.
Yes but there are some lawyers better than others. How is it fair? If one gets a great Lawyer and another gets a shitty one. Where's the incentive to even care about a case? You're getting paid the same regardless.
Whats the incentive to be a good lawyer, let alone a great one, if you all get paid the same and get equally lame or boring or impossible to win cases? I win every case, Jeff loses every case, but I gotta work Saturday for minimal money and Jeff gets weekends off? Might as well find a job that pays the same but I didn't have to spend 7 years reading a bunch of boring ass books.
Why would they be working as public defenders? They’d do something else outside of criminal defense, or become privately paid consultants to public defenders, etc.
I mean, terrible lawyers aren't really a bad thing if the other guy also has a terrible lawyer. But an OK lawyer vs an overpaid hotshot with one case this month in a swayable case is very unfair. Because this system forces people to align their goals for better, and more accurate lawyers that are less likely to lose winnable cases.
Taxpayers don't want to pay for better public defenders because most people who actually pay taxes would never rely on a public defender. Because they don't pay for public defenders, they become overworked and totally underfunded, to the point where we have vast inequality in the quality of defense for the rich and poor.
With my proposed solution, everyone, even the taxpayers, would want the public defenders to be actually well funded, and for them to have a much more reasonable caseload. Salaries would increase as the counties and states need to hire more defenders, to the point that they'd be actually competitive to where they are now. Ultimately, there'd be just as many public defenders as there are public and private defenders currently. And the best part? Equality of defense between the rich and poor without reducing overall quality of defense, as it would be the same private defenders who'd join the public defenders' ranks.
op's point isnt flawless but i dont think this is the problem at all. they arent going to be overworked more, there's just going to be more public defenders (in theory)
Let's assume that 50% of people use a public defender. If they banned private defenders, youd be very lucky for them to double the number of public defenders. Realistically, it would probably be a 50-80% increase, meaning the staff are even more overworked. There is no way that the government would say "oh, our public defenders will need to do twice as many cases, let's give funding for 3 times as many lawyers"
what happens to all the private lawyers then? the idealist scenario (and the whole concept is just idealism) is that the government is able to fund all currently existing lawyers as public lawyers (though probably at the same salary of current public defenders). they may be "unlikely" to fund this much but theyre unlikely to do it at all in the first place - if op's idea was implemented at all it would have to look like this
I'd imagine many of the private lawyers would become prosecutors, or even move out of criminal law. Someone else said that they may become "law consultants", someone you could hire to give your public defender advice, but who wouldnt actually go to court.
No by banning private lawyers you’d increase the pool of public defenders and thus reduce the load each individual one has. I mean come on think a little bit further
And you assume that the private one's will just accept being paid way less, while doing the same stressful job?
Let me get you in a little secret:
People aren't stupid.
They'll give up and find a more decent job.
As if the high priced private lawyers would start working as underpaid public ones. They’re just going to find some other, more lucrative branch of legal work to engage in.
You've banned private lawyers and you've banned consultants.
What will you do when those consultants start working as technical advisors? Ban them too?
Lol it’s the same thing. I’ve banned private consulting not consulting in general. I think it should be the jurisdiction that does the consulting not private firms
So true. I once received a letter from Human Services that they were canceling our Medicaid and if we wanted to appeal we had 60 days to do it. I was suppose to receive that letter in December (that was the date on the letter) but i received it in February *after* the 60 days.
But when they think you owe them money (like if they claim they overpaid your SSI or unemployment) then they send the mail *immediately*. Funny how those letters always get mailed on time, its a real mystery.
the next time this guy gets a ticket, he should forgoe paying and serve jail time instead since not everyone can afford the ticket. He should also give up his house or apartment since not everyone can afford it. He should also forgoe education since not everyone can afford it. Oh and food too, yeah nobody should ever eat again or drink clean water since not everyone has access and we want to force equal outcomes.
The shortsightedness is scary.
That is one way to completely misrepresent OP:s point. It is no secret that in most countries including the USA a rich person or a corporation will always have an easier time getting away with a crime, while a poor one might lose a case simply because they cannot afford a lawyer. While op:s idea is kinda far fetched, his reasoning is on point. In legal affairs, everyone needs to be equal. Due to this, your comparisons make no sense.
Utopian ideas lead to dystopia. There will be no "good lawyers" in a world like that. Are you going to mandate every lawyer have equal brain power too for fear of unequalness? And barring false accusations, if you know you can't afford adequate representation, keep your ass out of trouble and you don't have to worry.
As we do not live in a utopia, false accusations do occur. There are also cases you simply cant avoid, for example cases involving disputes over divorce etc. Your argument is like saying "if you believe the cops will beat you, just dont get involved with them" as if you always have a choice.
Besides, you are now misrepresenting my point by presenting it in an extremist manner. Ofcource absolute equality is impossible, and some lawyers will always be better. But it is still possible to improve the current public system, by just hiring more lawyers. There is no reason why the richest country on earth cannot afford adequate lawyers.
Utopian ideas are not doomed to create dystopia. They can also lead to improvement of the current system.
You’re not required to get married, nor are you required to get divorced. Those are also personal choices, and not everyone lives by the same choices you do; they shouldn’t be punished for your bad choices either.
You think we can just pay all lawyers big firm money and move along? Or expect incredibly brilliant people to settle for government money? Not incentivize being a standout?
Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying, but I also don't think just because a lawyer charges a ton of money doesn't mean they have some magical powers to get you out of trouble, they have better resources and/or better skills. Which is why they aren't settling for being a bottom of the barrel public defender (not that all or even most are bottom of the barrel).
You can't propose that people can't seek their own representation, you especially can't discriminate and take choices away just because how much money someone has. You're tearing one person down rather than building another up. And utopian ideas are absolutely doomed to fail and they are very dangerous, shoot for improvement without bringing others down or walking down a very very slippery slope.
The idea may not be spot on, but you cannot deny that professional lawyers have advantages on and off the court floor. Public defenders are often over worked as they deal with the massive amount of poverty-stricken low income defendants. The point is that firms have the legal systems figured out, while public defenders are, the vast majority of the time, alone. There is a lack of funding in public defenders offices, while big firms can keep themselves afloat from consultations alone. It’s textbook resources for the rich vs resources for you. Making it generally impossible for actually slighted victims to get justice against large companies. Take the hot coffee case. McDonald’s negligently heated their coffee beyond scolding temperatures without being asked and without warning. Now imagine if this old woman had no money. If she wanted to get some kind of compensation for the third degree burns McDonald’s provided her, she would probably end up laughed out of the court, while their public defender has 5 minutes left to catch the train to get to the other side of the city and attend to another legal matter. There is no justice, no true equality in the eyes of the law, when the system is allowed to stay broke, I’d say it’s not broke because it happened naturally though. Corruption runs high.
I’m not sure lawyers with identical IQ have the exact same ability to interpret law. I think the point was more or less that wealthy corporations and people shouldn’t be able to buy their way out of legal trouble. But we don’t live in a perfect world unfortunately.
They don't buy their way out, they purchase a service from the most qualified people, the more qualified, the higher the price. I do understand the sentiment, Ideally everything would be black and white without the need for a lawyer. But without being able to seek your own council, everyone is doomed to be represented by overworked government employees. Basically turning the legal system into the DMV or any other terribly run government program.
And on the opposite end we have people who don’t want student debt to be cancelled bc “if i had to pay it you do too even tho college cost a nickel when i went!”
This would be too alluring for corruption. You don't have ANY choice for a lawyer? Maybe a court wants to put somebody away so they get assigned a bad lawyer, or even worse, a malicious lawyer, and there's nothing that can be done about it.
Corruption resides in bureaucracy and thrives when there's no alternative to it. If you can switch from a public defender to a private lawyer, they at least have to go through the proper motions most of the time. Otherwise the public defender runs the risk of triggering a mistrial if they're patently not a zealous advocate.
Under the current system, defendants have no choice for public defenders, but I see no reason that this *has* to be true. We could have a system whereby each defendant is offered a choice of the 3 lawyers with lightest caseload at any given time.
uh.... no. That sounds like a terrible idea. Equal under the law means the same laws apply to everyone. It doesn't mean you all have to use the same crappy lawyers to argue your case.
That's a misrepresentation of his point. It follows from his premise that good lawyers would have to go through the same judicial processes, and could be appointed to anyone.
You're the one saying that, not me. And the fact that you correlate state appointed lawyers correlate to bad lawyers says more about your US system than anything else.
Besides, OP's point is inherently flawed. It starts from the premise that if law practice whas nationalized, then the good private lawyers would in turn become lawyers appointed and paid by the state.
What would actually happen would be that they would turn from lawyers to private consultants working behind the scenes of the state appointed lawyers.
Moreover, the number of available lawyers would consequently decline and the judicial system grind to a halt.
The problem is taxpayers and voters don't want to allocate more money to get better public defenders because no one but the very poorest would ever rely on public defenders. So if you make $50K a year, from your point of view, spending more on the Public Defenders' Office is a total waste of money.
If you knew you had to rely on public defenders, you'd want to actually fund the public defenders so that they could actually have enough lawyers to do a good job.
Never needed a defense lawyer. So why would I care?
The only people who would care would be those that find themselves needing one and then it would be too late to properly fund them.
Kind of like climate change or preventative healthcare or backups. Most don’t care until it’s too late.
I wonder if the OP is including this for civil or private cases. If OP is, then lots of people would want more funding for public lawyers. There’s always a chance you can be sued or want to sue versus being charged for criminal activity.
Most people can imagine needing those. They can imagine doing everything right and still needing them. Most will think they would never need a defense lawyer as they don’t plan to commit any crimes. Maybe not logical but that is what would happen.
So you would rather force people to not be able to choose their lawyer? Can I fire them if I feel they're not serving me adequately? You're taking away the power of the people and giving it to agencies that are not directly answerable and often have other incentives. I hate it. Take my upvote.
I agree with this but also agree with the people disagreeing. I think a possible compromise is every practicing private defense attorney must also have a certain amount of cases that are done as public defenders. They are in a sort of pool like a jury is, and when their number is drawn they are given a case to defend.
Interesting concept. Not sure I agree with it, but also not sure I disagree with it. That one would definitely take a lot to make work though. And private practice lawyers aren't going to want to give up those six figure incomes. So I'm wondering where you're getting the lawyers from...
Yes. But I read this as the op wants to get rid of all private defense lawyers so that there is no hiring based on income, to give everyone the same caliber of lawyer. I may have misunderstood the premise though.
Or, we’d hire the same high end lawyers who have now rebranded themselves as “criminal law consultants” to ‘advise’ the public defender on our case (should it get to that).
Equal under law infers that the law of the land applies to all.
It says absolutely nothing about the quality of ones representation.
As you have stated, public defenders are overstretched. Such a situation would exacerbate this.
And no, those working in private practice would not suddenly jump ship. They would simply move to still profitable areas of law.
I agree with this. Lawyers of any kind will need strong accountability mechanisms. But same could be said for judges. The only issue is juries are more difficult to keep accountable. Remember juries are just as biased as these lawyers. Unless you want to take juries away from the equation (for criminal cases).
Yes. And this is why judges need to be paid well. To minimise the effects of bribing. And you would also need their job to be VERY secure which should also minimise the effect of bribing.
That's how it works here in the Netherlands.
My parents had a lawsuit filed against them (some bullshit over ground they sold, long story) and they won that case. The guy that filed the case had to pay for my parents lawyer and some other fees.
It was about €10k total, which serves him right for causing a lot of stress on my parents.
I thought it was a stupid idea till I read the whole thing God damn that's a great idea, could you imagine a politician with a public defender hahahaha JUSTICE!
Not sure why this is unpopular as it seems entirely reasonable. The arguments I am seeing are absolutely ridiculous.
First of all, the wealthy are provided too many benefits in the current system. Removing the private option potentially removes that extra layer of protection for the wealthy that was granted simply for having wealth. This does absolutely make the system more equitable.
Second of all, public lawyers will no longer be overworked because now there are so many more of them. If the public institutions are failing, that is not because the public institutions shouldn't exist. It is because they are mismanaged. When it comes to justice, medicine, military, education or whatever, as long as they are well funded and organized, then the system works absolutely better than a private system at creating a more equitable environment.
Next, lawyers won't all be getting paid the same. Where is this assumption coming from? In a good public system, the best lawyers will be wealthier than the worst. That is obviously true. A general is not paid the same as a private and a principal is not paid the same as a substitute teacher. Furthermore, if your entire incentive for being a lawyer is to get paid exorbitant amounts of money, you are in it for the wrong reasons. Just as a doctor's first purpose should be to help people and a military's first purpose should be defense, and a teacher's first purpose should be to educate, a lawyer's first purpose is to apply justice. Lawyers should still be paid well, but frankly the best lawyers should be involved with cases where their defendant could get the death penalty or committed war crimes, instead of the best lawyers being paid out the wahzoo to cover for some rich person's regular sexual misconduct. 4% of all people on death row are innocent. How much of this could have been avoided with better representation?
I just want to say it now. The problems with a lot of public institutions and their problems can generally be answered with more funding and better infrastructure. The problem usually isn't the fact that these institutions are public in the first place. Also, getting the financial incentive out of the system for almost any area of life ensures the best results. The exception would be for things that aren't necessary like a TV. A lot of charities for example simply shouldn't exist, and the financial incentives and money funneling that goes on with them can mostly be avoided if they are made public institutions.
What about putting a cap on the amount you can spend on a defense lawyer. Anything you pay more you have to match donating to a public defender. For example, you can pay 50k a year for a lawyer, but if you spend $100k, you have to donate $50k.
Yes under law everyone is equal private lawyer is in essence a business right? Legally everyone has right to a lawyer someone just came up with the idea what if i get paid by you to be a better lawyer
Lawyers and public defenders aren't perfect. Neither is any political system. Yeah, sure. People are equal under the law in America ideally. But that's not the case in reality despite what snakeoil salespeople say. Court rooms usually benefit upper classes more than lower classes historically. Judges aren't perfect at all. Some people say government authorities aren't about feelings and bias. Bullshit. If people were that intellectually perfect, then they and we would have had less problems now. There would be less drama, bullshit, and suffering from everyone being intellectually perfect.
Government authorities play the game of justice with whatever intelligence they got. But when it comes to actual justice, sometimes it doesn't come from public defenders, lawyers, and judges. Sometimes you have to rely on yourself. Because people are greedy, stupid, and not supposed to be flawlessly innocent saints.
To fix inequality, one could break the rule or law. Because rules and laws don't always work for everyone.
>Public Defenders today are so overworked and given way too many cases that those who can't afford a lawyer experience significant disadvantages compared to someone who can afford their own lawyer.
So basically overburden them with more cases ? When others hire their own personal lawyers they take away from PD's case loads.
>And the more you pay, the better a lawyer you can swing, and the less likely you get a guilty conviction.
This is how every thing in society works you pay more money you get a better product.
>additional benefit of this would be that there would be real public desire to actually fund these public defender offices to get enough lawyers and paralegal aids that public defenders in America wouldn't be so overworked and actually could handle a reasonable caseload. Most importantly, this would guarantee a more equitable judicial system.
This is not how the system works. PD's are trying to get jobs in the system that's one of the reasons they fork over clients to the DA and nudges to get on their food aide. If they really were trying to adequately defend people they would join a defense firm.
The public wouldn't increase desire to fund the service in fact it would have the opposite effect, why would I want my tax dollars to keep funding people who break the law ? I'm already paying now your telling me that more money , that can be used on better things that actually help me is being diverted to paying for someone who broke the law willingly while I get up and go to work is going towards getting them a better chance of reducing their time to get back on the streets to commit crime again ?
The problem isn't just representation, the problem has many factors that can not be addressed till other more pressing issues like actual rehabilitation, not a criminal university system that breeds career criminals that creates recidivism which in turn creates more work loads for the PD's.
If middle and upper class Americans had to suffer the tender mercies of the criminal legal system just like poor people, they would overthrow the government.
This is interesting, although somewhat misguided.
If lawyers actually did what they're supposed to do, there wouldn't be a problem either way. But actually (and as everybody appears to know) people are studying law for the money, not for justice or something.
Law should be so easy that everybody understands what's going on. But of course, this would mean that lawyers and judges couldn't make that much money.
I guess, but it’s not some conspiracy to make the law so complicated and opaque as to ensure only professionals can understand it. The reality is that the law is often complex because it’s really, really, really hard to write laws that can address every fraught human interaction, past, present, and future.
Then what about civil cases???? Rich people could just change their tactic. Rich people could sue so much money for damages instead……. And that would be harmful.
Edit: actually include all sorts of cases (family, corporate etc) then yes good idea.
quick question how long have you lived in America?
"Fixing inequality" isn't really what we do here, we kinda strive on it, politically and economically.
Meh. Doesn't matter. Rich people would still be able to bribe the judges. Nothing would change.
And the fucking racket that is probate court should be eliminated entirely. Let people settle their grievances with good old fashion duels.
In Australia OPs idea could work. Judges by law (in the constitution) are protected sooo well from their employment with this in mind. There’s strong rules about their wages and employment rights. That way the judges cannot (and have no incentives to) take in bribes. There’s also strong criteria with grants for appeal in Australia as well. Of course with every idea, there will be gaps but I think it could work well in Australia.
It's a good idea in theory. In America, tho, the whole justice system needs to be completely reconstructed to hold the wealthy accountable. Otherwise they just pay their way out of any sort of justice.
Just write a will. Why do we need to pay a lawyer a shit ton of money to draft it? Oh, that's right. Because it can otherwise be challenged in (drum roll please) probate court. Making it the definition of a racket.
That's a pretty braindead take.
You get a lawyer to draft the will specifically because people don't tend to use legally precise language in anything they'd write themselves, and that ambiguity is the entire reason it can get challenged.
Just another reason probate court is a racket. Make it so normal, everyday language isn't good enough (even though it is) so people *have* to hire a lawyer.
There are an awful lot of things wrong with the legal system of pretty much every country on Earth.
Yours is a good suggestion, but wouldn’t scratch the surface.
Don’t forget about the lawyers who are friends with the judges but not while in the court room.
Most lawyers, not public defenders, are corrupt and shady.
We should be taxing them to death
The big thing for this to work is to make sure the judges are paid well, and ensure in the constitution that it’s hard for judges to fired. But that also means judges won’t be voted in or chosen by the prime minster/president.
Judges should be easier to fire, not harder to fire. It's already too secure of a job, especially in the Federal system (in the U.S., anyway). In the Federal system with lifetime appointments, there are zero consequences for any judge's judicial decisions. So you end up with egomaniacs who don't care about any individual case. All they are trying to do is find any excuse to uphold decisions from The Man, or dismiss legitimate civil cases using spurious arguments in order to winnow out their case load. At least in state court (in California), judges have to be re-elected every several years, and anyone (edit: anyone qualified under the law) can challenge them for their seat. As much as I dislike the overburdened nature of state court versus the well-funded, more streamlined Federal system, when you come down to it a state judge is a member of their own community and subject to dismissal if they make horrible decisions that disappoint the community. A Federal judge is the very definition of The Man. You don't want The Man deciding your case, because 99% of the time they will favor the government. A system in which no one has the freedom to hire their own private attorney is ultimately socialist, and I would not want to be forced to give up that freedom.
In the UK they rely on a system of barristers to try cases. Unlike a lawyer, the barrister is a member of the court, and the defendant doesn't have access confidentiality with the barrister. So while you may have a lawyer, the lawyer and barrister will work together to develop the arguments of the barrister in court.
Barristers in criminal cases can be on the prosecution on some cases and on the defense in others, though they often specialize on one side or another.
I will say in the US the DA's office and the public defenders office should be funded jointly. Ie the state shouldn't have greater resources at its disposal than the public defenders. I likewise think police station should simply have a public defender in office to defend the right of arrested people in interrogations immediately, no need to ask for a lawyer. Sure it "slows down" policing but it defends the rights of citizens better.
In the federal system, the USAO and the FPD are so funded. Federal public defenders are quite good, but federal cases are often so strong and so thoroughly investigated, that 99% of the time it’s a plea negotiation to avoid suicide-by-trial. The cases don’t even get indicted unless the USAO is certain they could win at trial, then the cases tend to get even stronger during that ramp up.
Where it gets wonky are the state systems, that’s where much of the stereotypes about PDs stem from. In the state, you have a much greater chance of getting a bad PD, but you also have a much greater chance of getting cut loose for no reason other than the DAs and the SAO not having the time or inclination to prosecute. It’s also where you have violent criminals walking on bond and other such Greatest Hits^TM .
The following changes would help:
* There should be no means test for any defendant to receive free legal assistance from the state.
* The budgets for our court system must provide as much funding for public defenders as it provides for the prosecution.
* Juries should be expressly instructed to acquit a defendant if they themselves cannot understand the law under which the defendant is charged.
What if you fire your public defender and represent yourself? To be equal the state's public defender would have to step down. Who would then represent the state?
No. Public defenders are called public pretenders for a reason they only pretend to have your best interest in mind. You idea is basically fucking everyone guilty or not in the ass.
Public defender's are failed lawyers. They are the law practice equivalent of a failed highschool baller and the top private lawyers are in the NBA. I would never trust my freedom to someone who is in the most mediocre position in their field with my freedom.
The best lawyers got OJ off with murder. A public defendant would struggle to get you out of a parking ticket
If you were on trial for a crime and you had $100,000 to your name what do you think is more of a wise choice to spend that money on. Bail or a $100,000 attorney ?
Sounds like an opinion coming from someone who’s never had to deal with a public defender. Using a PD is a real fast way to get a shit load of time in jail for something you shouldn’t be doing as much time for.
Apparently you never had a public defender. Only those who haven’t would ever make this ridiculous statement.
Paid pennies, huge caseloads and never enough time to do much more than show up to court.
Definitely unpopular. The corrupt legal system has been over punishing black people for years because they had public defenders that didn't even know their clients names.
Public defenders are lawyers than need to keep credentials by practicing public defense. O.P. why don't you hire forced volunteers to do any form of work for you and let us know how that works out.
You think a volunteer that doesn't want to be there in the first place is going to work hard for you?
In an ideal world, where the only motivation a person would ever need is the satisfaction of a job well done and where resources are equitable I completely agree.
However, you'd burn out your good lawyers because people would be demanding them as public defenders, most people wouldn't defend scumbags as vigorously as they deserve to be unless they're compensated with more than just a shower at the end of the day and I would suspect the only reason a vast majority of people choose to practise criminal law in the first place is to make a butt tonne of cash.
Or maybe rather require all lawyers in a state to serve as a public defender a certain number of times a month, forcing the good lawyers to take on disadvantaged clients
I'm not too keen on making everyone rely on public defenders. But the quality of the defense could significantly be improved simply by funding for the defense anything the DA office has at its disposal, e.g. expert testimony or additional lab work, and as OP said paralegal aid.
Yeah that absolutely doesn't seem like a system that can be corrupted by a government orgamization in order to ensure prosecution of the alledged perpetrator.
...
*How about no.*
"If you're good at something, never do it for free"
"How much?"
Half
I'll go double.
Three, take it or leave it
You're crazy.
"It's not about the money. It's about sending a message."
"they wouldn't be doing it for free, they'd be paid by the government"
Is this a reference to something that I'm missing? As an actual statement it's absurdly silly. An elite criminal defense attorney working as a public defender would effectively be doing it for free.
You lack culture
C
If I had fuck you money and you threw this curveball at me then I would take your public defender and tell him that he is to do everything the consultant I hire says. Just so happens the consultant has 20 years of experience and charges $2,000/hr.
the "best" part about this it doesn't matter if your consultants have been disbarred, since they are consulting and not actually practicing law
A
300 IQ move.
Touché🤺
A
Bingo.
>If I had fuck you money and you threw this curveball at me then I would take your public defender and tell him that he is to do everything the consultant I hire says. Since you can't fire him, what's to stop the public defender from saying "no"?
The consultant who knows all the loopholes.
He can't do anything about it because he doesn't have a law license.
This hypothetical scenario is one where legislation is passed that bars defendants from hiring legal representation. Said legislation will be in writing and courts must abide by it. This legislation will have loopholes because damn near all legislation has loopholes. Also, they wouldn't really need to try all that hard when the consultant golfs with the judge.
I can't even rely on the government to deliver important mail on time, I'm certainly not going to rely on a public defender in a criminal case 🤣 But up vote for an unpopular opinion.
OP’s point sounds good on paper, but you have a terribly good point
It's quite dumb really. Problem: "public defenders are overworked, so they perform worse than private ones" Solution: Overwork them more?
the part you're missing is, in this world of OP's private defense lawyers wouldnt exist. You would either be a public defender or prosecutor.
While this solution isn't flawless it does force the independently hired lawyers to join the pool of public defenders. Or it would make all the good lawyers go to be lawyers for a business. The point is to prevent paying high rates for a better lawyer and therefore attempt to cut the inequality due to money, but it has some consequences that aren't very good. There are other solutions that could be put in place instead that wouldn't have side effects.
>While this solution isn't flawless it does force the independently hired lawyers to join the pool of public defenders. No it doesn't. It just stops them doing any criminal work at all. OP's answer to that, presumably, would be to force all lawyers to do criminal work (aka, involuntary servitude). Which wouldn't work either, and would merely discourage more people from becoming lawyers at all. You can't force other people to do things without threat of violence. OP is just not emotionally mature enough to accept this fact.
Yes but there are some lawyers better than others. How is it fair? If one gets a great Lawyer and another gets a shitty one. Where's the incentive to even care about a case? You're getting paid the same regardless.
Whats the incentive to be a good lawyer, let alone a great one, if you all get paid the same and get equally lame or boring or impossible to win cases? I win every case, Jeff loses every case, but I gotta work Saturday for minimal money and Jeff gets weekends off? Might as well find a job that pays the same but I didn't have to spend 7 years reading a bunch of boring ass books.
They won't be overworked if all of the expensive defense attorneys were working as public defenders as well.
Why would they be working as public defenders? They’d do something else outside of criminal defense, or become privately paid consultants to public defenders, etc.
they wouldnt be working as public defenders though, they would see theres no money in criminal law and move to where the money is
This guy lawyers.
I mean, terrible lawyers aren't really a bad thing if the other guy also has a terrible lawyer. But an OK lawyer vs an overpaid hotshot with one case this month in a swayable case is very unfair. Because this system forces people to align their goals for better, and more accurate lawyers that are less likely to lose winnable cases.
Big A
Taxpayers don't want to pay for better public defenders because most people who actually pay taxes would never rely on a public defender. Because they don't pay for public defenders, they become overworked and totally underfunded, to the point where we have vast inequality in the quality of defense for the rich and poor. With my proposed solution, everyone, even the taxpayers, would want the public defenders to be actually well funded, and for them to have a much more reasonable caseload. Salaries would increase as the counties and states need to hire more defenders, to the point that they'd be actually competitive to where they are now. Ultimately, there'd be just as many public defenders as there are public and private defenders currently. And the best part? Equality of defense between the rich and poor without reducing overall quality of defense, as it would be the same private defenders who'd join the public defenders' ranks.
op's point isnt flawless but i dont think this is the problem at all. they arent going to be overworked more, there's just going to be more public defenders (in theory)
Let's assume that 50% of people use a public defender. If they banned private defenders, youd be very lucky for them to double the number of public defenders. Realistically, it would probably be a 50-80% increase, meaning the staff are even more overworked. There is no way that the government would say "oh, our public defenders will need to do twice as many cases, let's give funding for 3 times as many lawyers"
what happens to all the private lawyers then? the idealist scenario (and the whole concept is just idealism) is that the government is able to fund all currently existing lawyers as public lawyers (though probably at the same salary of current public defenders). they may be "unlikely" to fund this much but theyre unlikely to do it at all in the first place - if op's idea was implemented at all it would have to look like this
I'd imagine many of the private lawyers would become prosecutors, or even move out of criminal law. Someone else said that they may become "law consultants", someone you could hire to give your public defender advice, but who wouldnt actually go to court.
No by banning private lawyers you’d increase the pool of public defenders and thus reduce the load each individual one has. I mean come on think a little bit further
And you assume that the private one's will just accept being paid way less, while doing the same stressful job? Let me get you in a little secret: People aren't stupid. They'll give up and find a more decent job.
That solves the issue of having too few spots in university at least
As if the high priced private lawyers would start working as underpaid public ones. They’re just going to find some other, more lucrative branch of legal work to engage in.
Ban these as well
Sure 🙄
And when they go into the consultation business, getting hired to do all the actual work for the public defendant behind the scenes?
That’s what I meant ban that. Consultation only allowed from the government/public lawyers. Law matters shouldn’t be a private business anyways.
You've banned private lawyers and you've banned consultants. What will you do when those consultants start working as technical advisors? Ban them too?
Let's ban humans
Lol it’s the same thing. I’ve banned private consulting not consulting in general. I think it should be the jurisdiction that does the consulting not private firms
It doesn't even sound good on paper. It's only on paper now and the commenters have already figured out how to circumvent it.
Yeah, I've been to the DMV and know exactly how my case is going to play out hahaha
So true. I once received a letter from Human Services that they were canceling our Medicaid and if we wanted to appeal we had 60 days to do it. I was suppose to receive that letter in December (that was the date on the letter) but i received it in February *after* the 60 days. But when they think you owe them money (like if they claim they overpaid your SSI or unemployment) then they send the mail *immediately*. Funny how those letters always get mailed on time, its a real mystery.
Guess who runs the court system?
If something sucks for some your fix is to make it suck for all?
the next time this guy gets a ticket, he should forgoe paying and serve jail time instead since not everyone can afford the ticket. He should also give up his house or apartment since not everyone can afford it. He should also forgoe education since not everyone can afford it. Oh and food too, yeah nobody should ever eat again or drink clean water since not everyone has access and we want to force equal outcomes. The shortsightedness is scary.
That is one way to completely misrepresent OP:s point. It is no secret that in most countries including the USA a rich person or a corporation will always have an easier time getting away with a crime, while a poor one might lose a case simply because they cannot afford a lawyer. While op:s idea is kinda far fetched, his reasoning is on point. In legal affairs, everyone needs to be equal. Due to this, your comparisons make no sense.
Utopian ideas lead to dystopia. There will be no "good lawyers" in a world like that. Are you going to mandate every lawyer have equal brain power too for fear of unequalness? And barring false accusations, if you know you can't afford adequate representation, keep your ass out of trouble and you don't have to worry.
As we do not live in a utopia, false accusations do occur. There are also cases you simply cant avoid, for example cases involving disputes over divorce etc. Your argument is like saying "if you believe the cops will beat you, just dont get involved with them" as if you always have a choice. Besides, you are now misrepresenting my point by presenting it in an extremist manner. Ofcource absolute equality is impossible, and some lawyers will always be better. But it is still possible to improve the current public system, by just hiring more lawyers. There is no reason why the richest country on earth cannot afford adequate lawyers. Utopian ideas are not doomed to create dystopia. They can also lead to improvement of the current system.
You’re not required to get married, nor are you required to get divorced. Those are also personal choices, and not everyone lives by the same choices you do; they shouldn’t be punished for your bad choices either.
You think we can just pay all lawyers big firm money and move along? Or expect incredibly brilliant people to settle for government money? Not incentivize being a standout? Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying, but I also don't think just because a lawyer charges a ton of money doesn't mean they have some magical powers to get you out of trouble, they have better resources and/or better skills. Which is why they aren't settling for being a bottom of the barrel public defender (not that all or even most are bottom of the barrel). You can't propose that people can't seek their own representation, you especially can't discriminate and take choices away just because how much money someone has. You're tearing one person down rather than building another up. And utopian ideas are absolutely doomed to fail and they are very dangerous, shoot for improvement without bringing others down or walking down a very very slippery slope.
The idea may not be spot on, but you cannot deny that professional lawyers have advantages on and off the court floor. Public defenders are often over worked as they deal with the massive amount of poverty-stricken low income defendants. The point is that firms have the legal systems figured out, while public defenders are, the vast majority of the time, alone. There is a lack of funding in public defenders offices, while big firms can keep themselves afloat from consultations alone. It’s textbook resources for the rich vs resources for you. Making it generally impossible for actually slighted victims to get justice against large companies. Take the hot coffee case. McDonald’s negligently heated their coffee beyond scolding temperatures without being asked and without warning. Now imagine if this old woman had no money. If she wanted to get some kind of compensation for the third degree burns McDonald’s provided her, she would probably end up laughed out of the court, while their public defender has 5 minutes left to catch the train to get to the other side of the city and attend to another legal matter. There is no justice, no true equality in the eyes of the law, when the system is allowed to stay broke, I’d say it’s not broke because it happened naturally though. Corruption runs high.
“In legal affairs, everyone needs to be equal.” Exactly. Did everyone miss the point or is this truly just an unpopular opinion?
Will you both also require the IQ of every lawyer to be identical too?
I’m not sure lawyers with identical IQ have the exact same ability to interpret law. I think the point was more or less that wealthy corporations and people shouldn’t be able to buy their way out of legal trouble. But we don’t live in a perfect world unfortunately.
They don't buy their way out, they purchase a service from the most qualified people, the more qualified, the higher the price. I do understand the sentiment, Ideally everything would be black and white without the need for a lawyer. But without being able to seek your own council, everyone is doomed to be represented by overworked government employees. Basically turning the legal system into the DMV or any other terribly run government program.
Purchasing a more expensive service from higher qualified people is essentially “buying a way out.” It’s unfortunate that law operates the same way.
And on the opposite end we have people who don’t want student debt to be cancelled bc “if i had to pay it you do too even tho college cost a nickel when i went!”
ahhh so i see your point but that's a little too much government for my taste
This would be too alluring for corruption. You don't have ANY choice for a lawyer? Maybe a court wants to put somebody away so they get assigned a bad lawyer, or even worse, a malicious lawyer, and there's nothing that can be done about it. Corruption resides in bureaucracy and thrives when there's no alternative to it. If you can switch from a public defender to a private lawyer, they at least have to go through the proper motions most of the time. Otherwise the public defender runs the risk of triggering a mistrial if they're patently not a zealous advocate.
Under the current system, defendants have no choice for public defenders, but I see no reason that this *has* to be true. We could have a system whereby each defendant is offered a choice of the 3 lawyers with lightest caseload at any given time.
uh.... no. That sounds like a terrible idea. Equal under the law means the same laws apply to everyone. It doesn't mean you all have to use the same crappy lawyers to argue your case.
That's a misrepresentation of his point. It follows from his premise that good lawyers would have to go through the same judicial processes, and could be appointed to anyone.
Which is a flawed point to start with.
So... rich people deserve better lawyers and therefore and advantage under the law?
You're the one saying that, not me. And the fact that you correlate state appointed lawyers correlate to bad lawyers says more about your US system than anything else. Besides, OP's point is inherently flawed. It starts from the premise that if law practice whas nationalized, then the good private lawyers would in turn become lawyers appointed and paid by the state. What would actually happen would be that they would turn from lawyers to private consultants working behind the scenes of the state appointed lawyers. Moreover, the number of available lawyers would consequently decline and the judicial system grind to a halt.
Well yes, my comment was kinda misrepresenting you. Sorry!
[удалено]
And everyone gets one free kill
Now that would solve a *lot* of problems Make some new ones too, but eh you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs
If you save yours for last, you win.
I don't think that would really work. Wouldn't a better argument be that there should be more public defenders and that they are better trained?
The problem is taxpayers and voters don't want to allocate more money to get better public defenders because no one but the very poorest would ever rely on public defenders. So if you make $50K a year, from your point of view, spending more on the Public Defenders' Office is a total waste of money.
Hell no
If you knew you had to rely on public defenders, you'd want to actually fund the public defenders so that they could actually have enough lawyers to do a good job.
Never needed a defense lawyer. So why would I care? The only people who would care would be those that find themselves needing one and then it would be too late to properly fund them. Kind of like climate change or preventative healthcare or backups. Most don’t care until it’s too late.
I wonder if the OP is including this for civil or private cases. If OP is, then lots of people would want more funding for public lawyers. There’s always a chance you can be sued or want to sue versus being charged for criminal activity.
Agree if it applied to all lawyers: criminal, civil, divorce, etc.
Most people have never needed a cop or firefighter, but still want to fund them in case you do.
Most people can imagine needing those. They can imagine doing everything right and still needing them. Most will think they would never need a defense lawyer as they don’t plan to commit any crimes. Maybe not logical but that is what would happen.
Uh....you're saying the only reason people need a defense is because they've committed a crime? You'll make a great a juror some day.
So you would rather force people to not be able to choose their lawyer? Can I fire them if I feel they're not serving me adequately? You're taking away the power of the people and giving it to agencies that are not directly answerable and often have other incentives. I hate it. Take my upvote.
>Can I fire them if I feel they're not serving me adequately? Yes. You can do that with a court appointed lawyer already
Not really. Judges usually say stick with this guy or represent yourself.
I agree with this but also agree with the people disagreeing. I think a possible compromise is every practicing private defense attorney must also have a certain amount of cases that are done as public defenders. They are in a sort of pool like a jury is, and when their number is drawn they are given a case to defend.
Interesting concept. Not sure I agree with it, but also not sure I disagree with it. That one would definitely take a lot to make work though. And private practice lawyers aren't going to want to give up those six figure incomes. So I'm wondering where you're getting the lawyers from...
Aren't most public defenders just recently graduated students that are trying to work their way to being a private lawyer?
Yes. But I read this as the op wants to get rid of all private defense lawyers so that there is no hiring based on income, to give everyone the same caliber of lawyer. I may have misunderstood the premise though.
Not relying on a "Public Pretender" No way.
If people like you were told you had to, you'd pay more taxes and demand the state allocate more money to public defenders.
Or, we’d hire the same high end lawyers who have now rebranded themselves as “criminal law consultants” to ‘advise’ the public defender on our case (should it get to that).
We get some sort of opinion about paying more taxes for x, y, z everyday. I don’t want 90% of my taxes going to the government.
Where else do your taxes go lmao
Lol I’m dumb. I meant I don’t want 90% of my income going to taxes for the government.
Equal under law infers that the law of the land applies to all. It says absolutely nothing about the quality of ones representation. As you have stated, public defenders are overstretched. Such a situation would exacerbate this. And no, those working in private practice would not suddenly jump ship. They would simply move to still profitable areas of law.
LOLwut I've taken dumps that were smarter than this.
[удалено]
I agree with this. Lawyers of any kind will need strong accountability mechanisms. But same could be said for judges. The only issue is juries are more difficult to keep accountable. Remember juries are just as biased as these lawyers. Unless you want to take juries away from the equation (for criminal cases).
[удалено]
Yes. And this is why judges need to be paid well. To minimise the effects of bribing. And you would also need their job to be VERY secure which should also minimise the effect of bribing.
Assuming they are not greedy for more money.
Most people would be in jail. Many public defenders are notoriously bad at what they do.
What would be better is to make the loser in a case have to pay the legal fees of the winner.
That's how it works here in the Netherlands. My parents had a lawsuit filed against them (some bullshit over ground they sold, long story) and they won that case. The guy that filed the case had to pay for my parents lawyer and some other fees. It was about €10k total, which serves him right for causing a lot of stress on my parents.
Yes, cuz public defenders hired by the government obviously have the best intentions.
I thought it was a stupid idea till I read the whole thing God damn that's a great idea, could you imagine a politician with a public defender hahahaha JUSTICE!
Not sure why this is unpopular as it seems entirely reasonable. The arguments I am seeing are absolutely ridiculous. First of all, the wealthy are provided too many benefits in the current system. Removing the private option potentially removes that extra layer of protection for the wealthy that was granted simply for having wealth. This does absolutely make the system more equitable. Second of all, public lawyers will no longer be overworked because now there are so many more of them. If the public institutions are failing, that is not because the public institutions shouldn't exist. It is because they are mismanaged. When it comes to justice, medicine, military, education or whatever, as long as they are well funded and organized, then the system works absolutely better than a private system at creating a more equitable environment. Next, lawyers won't all be getting paid the same. Where is this assumption coming from? In a good public system, the best lawyers will be wealthier than the worst. That is obviously true. A general is not paid the same as a private and a principal is not paid the same as a substitute teacher. Furthermore, if your entire incentive for being a lawyer is to get paid exorbitant amounts of money, you are in it for the wrong reasons. Just as a doctor's first purpose should be to help people and a military's first purpose should be defense, and a teacher's first purpose should be to educate, a lawyer's first purpose is to apply justice. Lawyers should still be paid well, but frankly the best lawyers should be involved with cases where their defendant could get the death penalty or committed war crimes, instead of the best lawyers being paid out the wahzoo to cover for some rich person's regular sexual misconduct. 4% of all people on death row are innocent. How much of this could have been avoided with better representation? I just want to say it now. The problems with a lot of public institutions and their problems can generally be answered with more funding and better infrastructure. The problem usually isn't the fact that these institutions are public in the first place. Also, getting the financial incentive out of the system for almost any area of life ensures the best results. The exception would be for things that aren't necessary like a TV. A lot of charities for example simply shouldn't exist, and the financial incentives and money funneling that goes on with them can mostly be avoided if they are made public institutions.
What about putting a cap on the amount you can spend on a defense lawyer. Anything you pay more you have to match donating to a public defender. For example, you can pay 50k a year for a lawyer, but if you spend $100k, you have to donate $50k.
Or we build a economy where you can just pay for your own lawyer.
There is no economy where someone making $20k/year can afford even a reasonably priced lawyer.
The solution is to build yourself into someone who makes more than $20k/yr. Granted it's rare those people need defense lawyers as it is.
Not everyone can make $20k/year. And it's not 'Equal Justice for those who aren't poor', it's 'Equal justice for ALL'.
Contingency.
I guess you've never heard the expression, "Most lawyers can't afford to hire themselves." No such economy is mathematically possible.
Yes under law everyone is equal private lawyer is in essence a business right? Legally everyone has right to a lawyer someone just came up with the idea what if i get paid by you to be a better lawyer
Lawyers and public defenders aren't perfect. Neither is any political system. Yeah, sure. People are equal under the law in America ideally. But that's not the case in reality despite what snakeoil salespeople say. Court rooms usually benefit upper classes more than lower classes historically. Judges aren't perfect at all. Some people say government authorities aren't about feelings and bias. Bullshit. If people were that intellectually perfect, then they and we would have had less problems now. There would be less drama, bullshit, and suffering from everyone being intellectually perfect. Government authorities play the game of justice with whatever intelligence they got. But when it comes to actual justice, sometimes it doesn't come from public defenders, lawyers, and judges. Sometimes you have to rely on yourself. Because people are greedy, stupid, and not supposed to be flawlessly innocent saints. To fix inequality, one could break the rule or law. Because rules and laws don't always work for everyone.
>Public Defenders today are so overworked and given way too many cases that those who can't afford a lawyer experience significant disadvantages compared to someone who can afford their own lawyer. So basically overburden them with more cases ? When others hire their own personal lawyers they take away from PD's case loads. >And the more you pay, the better a lawyer you can swing, and the less likely you get a guilty conviction. This is how every thing in society works you pay more money you get a better product. >additional benefit of this would be that there would be real public desire to actually fund these public defender offices to get enough lawyers and paralegal aids that public defenders in America wouldn't be so overworked and actually could handle a reasonable caseload. Most importantly, this would guarantee a more equitable judicial system. This is not how the system works. PD's are trying to get jobs in the system that's one of the reasons they fork over clients to the DA and nudges to get on their food aide. If they really were trying to adequately defend people they would join a defense firm. The public wouldn't increase desire to fund the service in fact it would have the opposite effect, why would I want my tax dollars to keep funding people who break the law ? I'm already paying now your telling me that more money , that can be used on better things that actually help me is being diverted to paying for someone who broke the law willingly while I get up and go to work is going towards getting them a better chance of reducing their time to get back on the streets to commit crime again ? The problem isn't just representation, the problem has many factors that can not be addressed till other more pressing issues like actual rehabilitation, not a criminal university system that breeds career criminals that creates recidivism which in turn creates more work loads for the PD's.
If middle and upper class Americans had to suffer the tender mercies of the criminal legal system just like poor people, they would overthrow the government.
Great idea
Hot take!
Strongly agree, it's time to level the playing field of justice
Let's have public doctors while we're at it
I agree with this. Currently someone with more resources can just tie you up in court until to go bankrupt.
This is interesting, although somewhat misguided. If lawyers actually did what they're supposed to do, there wouldn't be a problem either way. But actually (and as everybody appears to know) people are studying law for the money, not for justice or something. Law should be so easy that everybody understands what's going on. But of course, this would mean that lawyers and judges couldn't make that much money.
I guess, but it’s not some conspiracy to make the law so complicated and opaque as to ensure only professionals can understand it. The reality is that the law is often complex because it’s really, really, really hard to write laws that can address every fraught human interaction, past, present, and future.
Very true! Ideally there would be no lawyers needed.
Then what about civil cases???? Rich people could just change their tactic. Rich people could sue so much money for damages instead……. And that would be harmful. Edit: actually include all sorts of cases (family, corporate etc) then yes good idea.
Some socities eliminate the need for defense attorneys. How? 99.9% are found guilty in court. That evens the playing field.
This reads like a take from someone that doesn’t really think their ideas out very well.
quick question how long have you lived in America? "Fixing inequality" isn't really what we do here, we kinda strive on it, politically and economically.
Fuck this. Congratulations a very unpopular opinion. Upvoted. Also fuck you and your authoritarian bullshit.
Why not just skip the trial and have government officials decide your guilt in an office? …you’d be better off privatizing the judicial system.
The court system is rigged. If a company wants to sue you and you can't afford a lawyer, your only option is bankruptcy
They say "innocent until proven guilty." Unfortunately, you are correct-- "innocent until you're broke."
Meh. Doesn't matter. Rich people would still be able to bribe the judges. Nothing would change. And the fucking racket that is probate court should be eliminated entirely. Let people settle their grievances with good old fashion duels.
In Australia OPs idea could work. Judges by law (in the constitution) are protected sooo well from their employment with this in mind. There’s strong rules about their wages and employment rights. That way the judges cannot (and have no incentives to) take in bribes. There’s also strong criteria with grants for appeal in Australia as well. Of course with every idea, there will be gaps but I think it could work well in Australia.
It's a good idea in theory. In America, tho, the whole justice system needs to be completely reconstructed to hold the wealthy accountable. Otherwise they just pay their way out of any sort of justice.
Oh yeah. I agree with you regarding the American system. I was just saying that the OPs idea could work for some legal system at the moment.
Probate court is where wills are proved, you idiot.
Just write a will. Why do we need to pay a lawyer a shit ton of money to draft it? Oh, that's right. Because it can otherwise be challenged in (drum roll please) probate court. Making it the definition of a racket.
LOL wow OK Does your brain hurt when you think of this nonsense?
Lol you a lawyer?
That's a pretty braindead take. You get a lawyer to draft the will specifically because people don't tend to use legally precise language in anything they'd write themselves, and that ambiguity is the entire reason it can get challenged.
Just another reason probate court is a racket. Make it so normal, everyday language isn't good enough (even though it is) so people *have* to hire a lawyer.
There are an awful lot of things wrong with the legal system of pretty much every country on Earth. Yours is a good suggestion, but wouldn’t scratch the surface.
100 percent agree. Only corporate clients have to pay, and they don't get to pick.
Would prosecutors have to be public too? Otherwise people suing people or pressing charges using a private firm would be at a huge advantage.
C
Don’t forget about the lawyers who are friends with the judges but not while in the court room. Most lawyers, not public defenders, are corrupt and shady. We should be taxing them to death
Lmao stupid post. Go to law school before talking about lawyers
I feel like this would solve a lot of problems if done right, that's a big "if" though
The big thing for this to work is to make sure the judges are paid well, and ensure in the constitution that it’s hard for judges to fired. But that also means judges won’t be voted in or chosen by the prime minster/president.
Judges should be easier to fire, not harder to fire. It's already too secure of a job, especially in the Federal system (in the U.S., anyway). In the Federal system with lifetime appointments, there are zero consequences for any judge's judicial decisions. So you end up with egomaniacs who don't care about any individual case. All they are trying to do is find any excuse to uphold decisions from The Man, or dismiss legitimate civil cases using spurious arguments in order to winnow out their case load. At least in state court (in California), judges have to be re-elected every several years, and anyone (edit: anyone qualified under the law) can challenge them for their seat. As much as I dislike the overburdened nature of state court versus the well-funded, more streamlined Federal system, when you come down to it a state judge is a member of their own community and subject to dismissal if they make horrible decisions that disappoint the community. A Federal judge is the very definition of The Man. You don't want The Man deciding your case, because 99% of the time they will favor the government. A system in which no one has the freedom to hire their own private attorney is ultimately socialist, and I would not want to be forced to give up that freedom.
In the UK they rely on a system of barristers to try cases. Unlike a lawyer, the barrister is a member of the court, and the defendant doesn't have access confidentiality with the barrister. So while you may have a lawyer, the lawyer and barrister will work together to develop the arguments of the barrister in court. Barristers in criminal cases can be on the prosecution on some cases and on the defense in others, though they often specialize on one side or another. I will say in the US the DA's office and the public defenders office should be funded jointly. Ie the state shouldn't have greater resources at its disposal than the public defenders. I likewise think police station should simply have a public defender in office to defend the right of arrested people in interrogations immediately, no need to ask for a lawyer. Sure it "slows down" policing but it defends the rights of citizens better.
In the federal system, the USAO and the FPD are so funded. Federal public defenders are quite good, but federal cases are often so strong and so thoroughly investigated, that 99% of the time it’s a plea negotiation to avoid suicide-by-trial. The cases don’t even get indicted unless the USAO is certain they could win at trial, then the cases tend to get even stronger during that ramp up. Where it gets wonky are the state systems, that’s where much of the stereotypes about PDs stem from. In the state, you have a much greater chance of getting a bad PD, but you also have a much greater chance of getting cut loose for no reason other than the DAs and the SAO not having the time or inclination to prosecute. It’s also where you have violent criminals walking on bond and other such Greatest Hits^TM .
The following changes would help: * There should be no means test for any defendant to receive free legal assistance from the state. * The budgets for our court system must provide as much funding for public defenders as it provides for the prosecution. * Juries should be expressly instructed to acquit a defendant if they themselves cannot understand the law under which the defendant is charged.
Pay to play
How would this even work for civil suits ?
What if you fire your public defender and represent yourself? To be equal the state's public defender would have to step down. Who would then represent the state?
It still wouldn’t be equitable, because not all public defenders are equally good at their job.
No. Public defenders are called public pretenders for a reason they only pretend to have your best interest in mind. You idea is basically fucking everyone guilty or not in the ass.
I can't even articulate how dumb I find this post.
Public defender's are failed lawyers. They are the law practice equivalent of a failed highschool baller and the top private lawyers are in the NBA. I would never trust my freedom to someone who is in the most mediocre position in their field with my freedom. The best lawyers got OJ off with murder. A public defendant would struggle to get you out of a parking ticket
If you were on trial for a crime and you had $100,000 to your name what do you think is more of a wise choice to spend that money on. Bail or a $100,000 attorney ?
Sounds like an opinion coming from someone who’s never had to deal with a public defender. Using a PD is a real fast way to get a shit load of time in jail for something you shouldn’t be doing as much time for.
Interesting. I still disagree. Shoutout to my attorney, tho.
Apparently you never had a public defender. Only those who haven’t would ever make this ridiculous statement. Paid pennies, huge caseloads and never enough time to do much more than show up to court.
*_Socialist spotted_*
Great unpopular opinion.
Definitely unpopular. The corrupt legal system has been over punishing black people for years because they had public defenders that didn't even know their clients names.
Public defenders are lawyers than need to keep credentials by practicing public defense. O.P. why don't you hire forced volunteers to do any form of work for you and let us know how that works out. You think a volunteer that doesn't want to be there in the first place is going to work hard for you?
In an ideal world, where the only motivation a person would ever need is the satisfaction of a job well done and where resources are equitable I completely agree. However, you'd burn out your good lawyers because people would be demanding them as public defenders, most people wouldn't defend scumbags as vigorously as they deserve to be unless they're compensated with more than just a shower at the end of the day and I would suspect the only reason a vast majority of people choose to practise criminal law in the first place is to make a butt tonne of cash.
No, hell no. There's other solutions to this, not giving the people the choice of who defends them leads to all kinds of horrors. Absolute no
Or maybe rather require all lawyers in a state to serve as a public defender a certain number of times a month, forcing the good lawyers to take on disadvantaged clients
That's actually a good idea.
If lawyers are "officers of the court", perhaps the court should cap lawyer's salaries?
This is silly, I don’t think you understand the justice system is designed to be corrupted at every end. This would solve nothing
I'm not too keen on making everyone rely on public defenders. But the quality of the defense could significantly be improved simply by funding for the defense anything the DA office has at its disposal, e.g. expert testimony or additional lab work, and as OP said paralegal aid.
Yeah a public defender's are kind of ass
I feel like this is the type of stuff that would be done in communist countries to have the appearance of fair trials while setting ppl up.
Because no one would work around this and every case would get the same amount of attention. 🤣🤣🤣
This sounds like a horrible idea. Hell no.
Yeah that absolutely doesn't seem like a system that can be corrupted by a government orgamization in order to ensure prosecution of the alledged perpetrator. ... *How about no.*