Rich versus poor in American justice system.

[Urban Ranger]

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

Let them.

[HershOstropoler]

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.

[Dis]

communism is the only way.

all hail communism!

[Urban Ranger]

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?

[HershOstropoler]

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.

[Urban Ranger]

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

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

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.

[HershOstropoler]

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.