Navigation »Cameldog Mixed Martial Arts Forums > Off-Topic Discussion > War & Peace » Legal representation should be free in criminal trials.

War & Peace Duke it out and test your debating skills here ! Politics and world affairs, religion and science, theology, the events that shape our world.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-05-2008, 05:57 PM   #1
VIP Member
Image and video hosting by TinyPicImage and video hosting by TinyPic
 
MirkoSledgehammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,466
Default Legal representation should be free in criminal trials.

Since the government has nearly inexhaustible resources to pour into an effort to prosecute someone and deny them their freedoms, I feel they should make the same effort towards someone's defense. This presents a problem because of how our system is setup. It is the state versus an individual: "The state of California versus John Smith". Well, it doesn't look too good for Mr. Smith since he has a whole entire fucking state to contend with(or the federal govt in federal cases).
Have any of you ever been prosecuted? Anyone ever have to pay for an attorney? A criminal defense attorney will cost you typically at least a couple thousand dollars, and it just goes astronomically higher from there. And you have to come out of your pocket and pay for this representation even though it has not been proven you are guilty of anything. Public defenders? Public "pretenders" is what they are actually known as to anyone who has knowledge of the system. And you're not even guaranteed one of these unless you can prove your poverty.

And the alleged "victim" merely has to make an accusation in order for the process to begin. So the "victim" essentially has the resources of a large governmental entity at their disposal simply because they made an accusation and some prosecutor's office felt there was enough evidence to proceed with a trial. And that is not a very high standard of evidence. I think the standard may be "probable cause" IIRC(sorry I never went to law school) and in any case, the standard is highly subjective. It is certainly less stringent than the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard required to convict. And even if proof beyond a reasonable doubt is technically required for a conviction, you have to trust a jury to hold the prosecutor's evidence to that standard in the event of a trial. And I have very little faith in most people.

So it looks like is very important for the accused to have a competent defense. And it is very difficult to obtain this for many people due to the cost. But the government doesn't have that problem. They have a practically infinite reservoir of resources to ensure that the accused is deprived of their rights.
So maybe the government should start paying for people's defense if they will pay for their prosecution, or maybe they should make some other changes to the criminal justice system to make it more fair for the accused.

Anyone can be accused of something. It can happen to anybody. Don't think for a minute that it will never happen to you.
MirkoSledgehammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UFC Screws Over Affliction : Banned Card!!! FREE Wand vs. Vera!! SUZUKICRASH The Empire: UFC & TUF 68 04-18-2009 10:21 PM
Free Affliction posters and postcards. Khellus The Challengers: Strikeforce & DREAM 15 07-02-2008 09:51 AM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC7