Should the government provide an attorney(on civil cases) for people below the poverty line?

Question

I have a debate, and I would like to know what everyone thinks, If you can, please state a source! Thanks!!

Answer 1

The right to an attorney only goes so far as when the government is involved. When the government takes you to court then yes, you have the right to an attorney.

That same right does not extend to civil matters, and no attorney is needed. Besides, the attorneys that the government provides are already overloaded with cases, to give them even more work would make them almost useless.

Answer 2

No, they should not. The providing of an attorney for criminal cases is in accordance with the Constitutional right to a fair trial. This part of the Constitution clearly is refering to criminal cases and the rights the accused have under due process, not to civil ones. The legal standards used in civil cases are much different than those used in criminal cases.

Answer 3

I don't think the government should be responsible. Most plaintiff's attorneys, especially in civil matters, will take the case if it appears to have merit. They typically take a portion of their client's judgment if they win. I don't think the government should step in and provide attorneys for people. Too many people sue over stupid stuff and this would only further increase the number of lawsuits in our court system.

Answer 4

Welll look at it this way the only thing typically at risk in civil trial is money, so person's below the poverty line don't have anything to lose.

Answer 5

It is not the responsibility of the tax payers to provide an attorney for a defendants attempt at financial gain.

Answer 6

No! to many unnessesary suits taking up the time in the court rooms. To many needed cases need that space. Good question tho!

Answer 7

No