To make things equal, shouldn't every criminal defendant have to rely on a public defender?

Question

Instead of getting to pay huge money for private defense attorneys (if you're rich) or being screwed (if you're not)... It'll make everyone support adequate funding for Public Defenders

Answer 1

I have a better idea: let's let all defendants, rich and poor, select the lawyer they most trust to represent them. The rich ones can pay for themselves, the middle-class can probably get a loan to pay, and we can devise a co-op plan or a non-profit foundation to pay for the rest.

The public defenders are often enough right out of law school and pretty inexperienced. Some will go on to be good, even great lawyers someday, but some will always be mediocre. I would never trust a lawyer who had been in the public defender's office more than two or three years. The new, green one who has just been studying the latest cases in law school could well be better than someone who is content with such a job, or who is unable to get a better one.

Answer 2

Uh... a public attorney is an attorney doing Pro Bono work, they also get paid from other clients. You say this as if Public attorneys are a different kind of attorney. Some new attorneys start out as public defenders, but that doesn't mean they are any less good at their job, than an attorney charging 500.00 per hour. And NO to your question, it would be unequal if everyone wasn't entitled to make a decision about the type of defense they would like to have. Another thing, if someone is appointed an attorney and they are found guilty... the person pays attorney fees, court costs, and restitution if required. So whats the difference besides cost?

Answer 3

Absolutely Not.

The fact that are judicial system has Public defenders makes things as equal as possible.
If everyone had a public defender then a persons right of choice would be elimanated. If an individual per say wanted Jonny Cochran they would have to settle for Joe Blow. On the other hand many attorneys would be forced to defend clients/cases they have no interest in. Having public defenders and Private attorneys creates an equal balance. Also if all defense attorneys where public defenders then the pay scale for the entire judicial system would flip on its head.
Your statement was morally right but economically and systematically wrong.

Answer 4

A criminal when they go to trial is committing a crime againsty the STATE not the store, person or buisness.
It is the State Versus.....and et.all.
A legal system that depends upon defendents who are guaranteed RIGHTS, such as United States citizens, had to insure those Rights by an ACTION brought forth by its Citizens Versus Its Government.
That ruling in favor of all persons having equal opportunity, a person can still deny a lawyer or even plead to a non jury trial for some offences,under law for a legal defence person to represnt them was ruled by the Supreme Court as a RIGHT.
The American Justice System contrary to most nations laws is based upon citizen rights and one differing principal governs it and that is , Innocent until proven guilty.
Contrary to most peoples thoughts the legal defendents officers are not majority of newbies as many of the much dreaded UCLA have been at it for years and while the public defenders office is a way for newbies to learn or earn their bones many remain in it while doing leglal work in differing fields.
The majority challenges to Constituionality of laws has come from the small law firms or independent lawyers not some huge law firms and most assuredly not from within the bureaucracy of Government employed legal proffessionals.
That has changed since the Nixon era especailly so with the present leadership who has employed its Justice Department in trying to find ways "Around" the Constitution" instead of prossecution of criminals.
Equal in the eyes of the law, means" accessability" but that does not mean the "quality" of service is equal by any means.
While admittedly the dangers of having a bureaucracy decide your representative is inherent in such a system, do you try your case against your boss and would that influence your energy for justice, is why Independent Public Defenders Offices were set in place.
The old saw about if it ain't broken don't try to fix it applys in that, the system was broken and we have tried to fix it and while not perfect it is better than we had before.
To place it all within the hands of a bureaucrcy the Citizens had to sue to get equal treatment under law would be a step backwards!

Answer 5

You assume that public defenders are always worse than a private criminal defense attorney. I have many friends who are public defenders and they are extremely good at their jobs. They've had offers to go private, but would rather do the work they are doing with the poor.

Answer 6

No, nor do they need to. Public Defenders make very good money. They can charge for 15 minutes of legal time spent reading a letter from the judge that took them two minute to read. They get paid for hours spent on each case in 15 minute segments, even if it takes less than that, such as instructing a paralegal to do something. They get $60 an hour per case, but can work on 10-20 cases an hour. \\\\\\\\\\\\\

Answer 7

NO! Our country is founded on freedom......
People should get to choose who they want to represent them especially when their freedom is at stake. I am all for better public defender conditions but when its a public supported program people don't want to pay. This is a case of revenue/profits not charity and good will.

Answer 8

I don't know...I think it may cause the sytem to become more corrupt than it already is. Many innocent people that could afford good lawyers may be unjustly convicted.
Ther is no perfect solution. I think the punishments should be more harsh.

Answer 9

the justice system is not based on fairness. it is based on money.

Answer 10

Sounds good to me!