This is a common class of problem with this kind of system. The state level public defender offices are mandated to exist since Gideon v. Wainwright, but the courts aren't really in a position to dictate budgeting. Legislatures could e.g. require budget parity with the prosecutor's office, but largely don't want that because helping accused criminals is politically unpopular.
which leads to another problem, if we can't supply them, we need to reinvent our court system to become more realistic for people to defend their own case without having to worry about the nitpicks of "oh you didn't just say that did you now you're in more trouble you should have had a lawyer"
laws aren't difficult to read nor understand, its however very tedious to make sure you're not missing something important from some chapter of a book you were unaware of. understanding the history of how cases TEND to be prosecuted and dealt with is another whole cultural side of things that are just not obvious to the layman. and this kind of information can and should be more accessible to people currently being processed through the system
i think in the age we currently live in this is a realistic goal for improvement that would also humanize the process quite a lot
> laws aren't difficult to read nor understand, its however very tedious to make sure you're not missing something important from some chapter of a book you were unaware of.
Yea, as a non-lawyer, this is what would terrify me away from representing myself in court. Not whether I was guilty or not, but the fact that it's such a procedural gotcha-game: "Haha! You did not say Magical Incantation 1924 in front of a judge in response to the opposing counsel's Magical Incantation 266! You automatically lose!" Or "Haha! You didn't file a form 27B/6 in the right clerk's office before the right deadline! You automatically lose!"
> oh you didn't just say that did you now you're in more trouble you should have had a lawyer
Yeah, there is so much absolutely farcical stuff that happens in our court systems that would make for champagne-tier black comedy, if it didn't affect people's lives so much.
Accused: "I want a lawyer, dawg!"
Police: No lawyer.
In court...
"I asked for a lawyer and they refused to let me get one."
Prosecutor: "Your honor, the defendant asked the police for a lawyer dog, and knowing no canines that had passed the bar, they were unable to find one. This isn't their fault."
Judge: "Sounds entirely reasonable to me. No issue here."
As a lawyer, I feel like your comment is reflective of the general misunderstandings around this issue.
Sit through a docket or two and you come to a few conclusions. 1. They're all guilty. This is a corollary of: prosecutors like shooting fish in a barrel, not prosecuting cases where they might have to actually work. 2. The role of the defense lawyer in 99% of these cases is to keep them from disrupting the proceedings. 3. Probation / alternative sentences don't work. A good horsewhipping in the town square and 90 hard labor on the farm would be a much more effective way to get through to these people (and thus ultimately more humane).
Even if what you're saying is true (and I grew up with dudes like you're describing) it's extremely important that those folks get due process. If we (the non-criminals) don't hold up the ideals of civilization then we lose the right to perform "justice" on these offenders, eh? I've heard dudes say, "the cops are just another gang", due process is how we make that not true.
Further, a lot of the people who can't control themselves are /also/ victims: lead in the water and air, moms who took drugs during pregnancy (the most out-of-control kid I knew back in the day was a "crack baby", he was neurologically damaged before he was born.)
Whippings and forced farm labor (you realize you're describing slavery?) are not a solution to criminality.
Everyone is entitled to due process and a certain burden of proof regardless of whether or not the vast majority are generally guilty.
The courts should not be dictated by efficiency, but by everyone's rights being fully respected. I understand what reality is but we should strive for better and accept nothing less.
There's another attorney in this thread who seems genuinely unsure why we should be devoting time, effort or energy into people who are "obviously probably guilty". Genuinely unsure might be stretching it too. "Complex criminal defense cases where there's a decent chance the person may not be guilty should get resources, everything else? Eh."
Like... Law School 101. That attitude in an attorney is genuinely disappointing at best, frightening at worst.
I work in a field where "compassion fatigue" and burnout are very very real things (after you administer Narcan to someone for the third time that week, or you go to the home of the person who calls 911 at 3am because they stubbed their toe several days ago and now it has a hangnail that's catching on their bedsheets and making it "difficult" to fall asleep)...
but being blunt - the day those feelings overtake you is the day you should consider what you are doing and why you are doing it.
It has nothing to do with fatigue. It has to do with being able to see rather obvious patterns when they're repeated 100 times a day, day after day, in courtrooms across the country.
As an attorney, I will always fight zealously for my clients, that doesn't mean I can't form opinions about the system as a whole.
> As an attorney, I will always fight zealously for my clients, that doesn't mean I can't form opinions about the system as a whole.
The point of compassion fatigue is that when you start forming these opinions about the people you see, consciously or subconsciously, can you be as sure you are as zealously advocating for your clients as they deserve?
I don't mean to impugn you, to be clear. But that's the thing in EMS too, how am I sure I don't dismiss a patient's complaint as whining, when it's the third time I've seen them that week, even if I take care of everything else they have going on? And how long is it before that compassion fatigue leads me to miss or overlook a pertinent finding that has consequences for them?
a part of the "justice" system is not just to get justice for victims who have been wronged but its also to get justice for the guilty, to make them understand their wrongs and feel that they should be punished
to infuriate people with petty bureaucracy and form-filling as an extremely dangerous gotcha-game does not make them feel like the system actually does them "justice". punishments are meant to bring someone back into society, but if they go into that punishment thinking they were wronged by the process itself, its only making it worse for everyone
