+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: 911 (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Read Snowden’s Comments On 9/11 That NBC Didn’t Broadcast (/thread-12638.html)
Read Snowden’s Comments On 9/11 That NBC Didn’t Broadcast - David Guyatt - 12-06-2014
I believe I'm right in saying that it's slightly different in Blighty. In criminal cases a lawyer is provided gratis by the state for those who fall below a certain income. But what often happens is that you gets the dregs lawyers who don't care and don't even try to earn their money. And with a police force who are truly corrupt and arrogant to boot, chances are they're looking for a collar whether or not the mug they have is guilty or not. Besides that the better class of criminals (the loaded ones) can get to buy their charges being dropped through loss of evidence -- assuming some innocent hasn't been fitted up in their place by a pliable plod.
In civil cases you can also get a lawyer on the state too. But it's pretty much a remunerectomy for the lawyer.
Read Snowden’s Comments On 9/11 That NBC Didn’t Broadcast - Drew Phipps - 12-06-2014
I've never seen England's criminal justice system in action, so I'll take your word for it. There is a similar (mis-?) perception of court-appointed counsel here in the States. In most jurisdictions, taking court appointed cases is just expected of a practitioner when you do criminal work in that jurisdiction. Although I am aware that there are some lawyers that unfortunately treat their indigent clients less seriously than the paying ones, I think the extent to which the perception is applied is wildly over exaggerated. By far, most of the attorneys that I know don't "slack off" for court-appointments.
I have to say, though, that having a substantial budget for defense investigators and experts can dramatically change the outcome of a case; and it is a challenge (but not impossible) to persuade a judge (with a budget of his/her own) to allot to a court-appointed attorney a sum of enough taxpayer money to make the dramatic difference.
Read Snowden’s Comments On 9/11 That NBC Didn’t Broadcast - Magda Hassan - 12-06-2014
Drew Phipps Wrote:Although I am aware that there are some lawyers that unfortunately treat their indigent clients less seriously than the paying ones, I think the extent to which the perception is applied is wildly over exaggerated. By far, most of the attorneys that I know don't "slack off" for court-appointments.
I know in Australia, which has a very similar system to the UK, being based on it, that many of the court appointed defence lawyers tend to work to make life run smoothly for the court system rather than represent their client's best interests. Getting their clients to plead guilty and not rock the boat even though their client may be fitted up and not guilty. There is no justice just a legal system which operates more like a sausage factory processing meat along the way. On the other hand I also know lawyers who went into law because they are fighters for underdogs and know the system is rigged against most people. But not all of them work as public defenders. Some do pro bono but it is limited. It is a flawed system. I think it might be fairer to take the money out of law and just have the state paying both defence and prosecution. Lawyers allocated randomly from a pool of available lawyers as they become available.