Sure, but what does a competent defense look like when someone is caught on CCTV breaking into a cell phone store and stealing phones, and then the police find text messages of him fencing the stolen phones? The thing about "poor people crimes" is that they're either easy to prove because what's illegal is doing something you're not allowed to do. (Or they go unsolved, because they can't find who did the thing.)

The reason "rich people" crimes are so expensive to defend is because those crimes often involve conduct that could be a crime or not depending on what various people were thinking at the time they did it, or whether it amounts to a pattern, etc.

I agree with the principle that anyone accused of a crime that warrants a complex defense should get one, whether or not they can afford it. But that's a small fraction of all prosecutions. Society needs to be able to handle the guy who breaks into the cell phone store and was caught on camera in a cost-effective and efficient way.

> Society needs to be able to handle the guy who breaks into the cell phone store and was caught on camera in a cost-effective and efficient way.

I think if you were the defendant, you might feel differently about the importance of making your trial cost-effective and efficient vs. competent and robust. Even that guy who is on TV breaking into cell phone stores should have the opportunity to cast doubt in the jury's mind, unless we think it's a good idea to have a separate "efficient" court system for people who are "obviously" guilty.

> I think if you were the defendant, you might feel differently about the importance of making your trial cost-effective and efficient

Of course! But that’s just an invitation to put aside reason and think with emotions. That doesn’t mean it would be fair to society to do that. And why should we allow a small class of anti-social people to revictimize society in that way?

I was a card-carrying ACLU member for a long time. But working in the court system really opened my eyes to the reality is that there’s a fraction of the population that’s anti-social and repeatedly victimizes society and the communities in which they live. They have rap sheets a mile long, and are prosecuted based on piles of evidence. Society needs some way to deal with these people that’s just to them but also just and fair to society.

The principle of innocence until proven guilty, the standard of reasonable doubt, and the inefficient trial by jury of one's peers is the best we have figured out so far. If there is a better way, I think everyone would love to hear it. But before you propose it, please consider whether it would really provide justice if you were the defendant with the mile-long rap sheet, but who didn't do it this time.

Clearly it's not the best we have figured out, or even a very good method. Look at how much more peaceful and orderly places like Japan and Singapore are, where you have effective, efficient justice.

Again, asking me to think about what if I was the defendant is an invitation to be antisocial. Of course, in that moment, I would say "fuck society!" But that's not a good way for society to make decisions for the good of the whole.

> Sure, but what does a competent defense look like when someone is caught on CCTV breaking into a cell phone store and stealing phones

Protecting their rights? Ensuring an overly zealous prosecutor doesn't overcharge the case?

I was the defendant in a case (charges dropped completely very quickly) where the prosecutor had flagged me as a "flight risk" and wanted me held with a stupid amount of bail and a surrendered passport because I was "here on a temporary work visa only" (actually, lived here 17 years as a permanent resident) and had "no ties to the community" (other than owning a house in the area for several years, working in the area, including as a volunteer firefighter/paramedic, oh, and having a partner and child).

I would easily have spent a good amount of time sitting in jail before the charges were dropped if I hadn't had competent representation, and that's even before we consider the facts of my case.

Why? If you knew 100% someone was guilty, why would you defend them? Isn't the point of the "strong defense" that we haven't established guilt? If someone is guilty, then give them the consequence of the crime, unless you think having some guilty people get away with it (at substantial cost) is in the best public interest?

I understand providing a way to determine guilt and innocence without bias, but if everyone knows someone is guilty, isn't trying them and/or defending them just a waste of resources, with the best outcome being "same as plea bargain" and worst possible outcome being "goes free without punishment, despite having committed crime"?

It’s a token effort to catch the false positives. If you put in no effort you’d start to become overconfident in the guilty assessment and an increasingly larger percent of defendants will be considered guilty even though more of them will in fact be innocent.

Plus there is more to it than guilty/not guilty and the state should not be permitted to take shortcuts.

Our whole concept of justice enshrined in the US Constitution is that the truth must be ascertained by a jury of your peers from a fair presentation of the evidence and arguments in a court of law. And it is entirely to prevent people from being "rubber stamped" guilty and discarded. At its heart the trial is about ascertaining the truth, with the understanding that the verdict has some powerful gravity for everyone involved.

> If you knew 100% someone was guilty, why would you defend them?

Ask defense attorneys, I think you'll be surprised at the number of "yes" responses. How do you establish that "everyone knows" someone is guilty? You're assuming the conclusion as true and then reasoning from there. Put yourself in the shoes of a defendant who "everyone knows" is guilty. Would you not still want a robust and aggressive defense?

Ok I get what people are saying, but you are describing the common case, where guilt is in question. I'm talking about the parent comment which is saying "even if someone is known to be guilty they still deserve defense." You're talking about the common case -- where there is doubt to guilt and/or someone maintains innocence. Do you also believe someone who admits guilt should still be defended (e.g. hide this fact from the jury and proceed as though they didn't admit to the crime)? The only reason for defending someone is because they may be innocent, there is no advantage to excusing a guilty person. Or do you believe there is an advantage to excusing the guilty?

I also understand why we have our current system, and that there may be false positives, I'm merely commenting on the fact that we should not defend those that are 100% known to be guilty (and I'm not claiming that its easy to ascertain, but that in cases where people plead/confess, maybe its for the best).

Let's enter fantasy land for a moment and assume that we even can ascertain whether someone is "100% known to be guilty" without a trial. Say we have a crystal ball that we can just ask. That person still is entitled to representation to ensure that all the proper procedure was followed (was the law somehow broken when the crystal ball was consulted? was the crystal ball accurately calibrated and configured? is it a real crystal ball and not a knock-off that always says "guilty"?).

Even if there was no crystal ball! The defendant admitted and signed a confession. He still needs a defense. Was the confession forced or obtained under duress? Did the defendant know what he was confessing to?

And even if there was no crystal ball, the defendant confessed voluntarily and understood fully what he confessed to, cooperatively admitted everything to the point where there is zero chance of reasonable doubt. He still needs a defense. Who is going to ensure that a fair punishment is imposed? Without a defense attorney and proper procedure, what stops the judge from simply imposing the maximum sentence for everyone?

Thanks this changed my mind and I agree with your assessment.