(no subject)

[theweaselking]

"A near-epiphany at the Supreme Court" - the US Supreme Court rules that requiring a rich person to use a public defender is a violation of their right to effective counsel.

They don't, however, extend this to the natural and inevitable conclusion that requiring *anyone* to use a public defender in the USA must also be a violation of their right to effective counsel.

(Not that I blame public defenders - they do the best they can under impossible conditions. There needs to be at least ten times as many of them, though, likely far, far more. Or the USA could stop putting so many people into the courts, that would work, too.)

Comments

[pappy-legba.livejournal.com]

Or something like what title IX (kinda sorta) did for the NCAA: ensure matching funds. For every dollar the DA's office gets, the PD's office gets the same.

(Because I'm assuming that the War on Drugs/Prison-Industrial complex will prevent direct attempts to cut down arrests).

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Oh man. I can hear the "you want to spend as much money keeping criminals out of jail as prosecuting them?" screams already.

I like it. Sounds like a great plan.

[pappy-legba.livejournal.com]

In Which The Public Defender's Office Suddenly Considers Asset Forfeiture A Good Idea.