|
|
Post by p4intb4ll on Jan 12, 2006 23:51:55 GMT -6
"over 95% of defendants cannot afford legal representation and end up being represented by court-appointed attorneys whose credentials are sometimes weak"
is the system not biased against those who cannot afford attorneys with better representation?
|
|
|
|
Post by californian on Jan 13, 2006 0:43:09 GMT -6
"over 95% of defendants cannot afford legal representation and end up being represented by court-appointed attorneys whose credentials are sometimes weak" is the system not biased against those who cannot afford attorneys with better representation? probably not, because a capital defense case can easily run to the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. So, if 95% have to do it, essentially, all the murderers are in the same boat. |
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Jan 13, 2006 10:47:22 GMT -6
"over 95% of defendants cannot afford legal representation and end up being represented by court-appointed attorneys whose credentials are sometimes weak" is the system not biased against those who cannot afford attorneys with better representation? Weak? Who's says? In my state, you are entitled to two attorneys and they must be “death qualified.”This means at least 10 years of criminal law trial practice with at least 10 serious or violent felony jury trials, including at least 2 murder cases, or 5 serious/violent jury trials including 3 murder cases. They must be familiar with and experienced in the use of expert witnesses and evidence, including, but not limited to, psychiatric and forensic evidence. They have to attend what they call Death College which is about a week and is held every year. That's the minimum qualifications. Most have experience well over the minimum. There are numerous seminars to attend in how to defend capital cases. There are numerous organizations and attorney experts that assist trial attorneys in capital cases. Same for appellate indigent defense. The attys that Peterson's family hired they think are so good (and they are) mainly do indigent appellate defense. It's another big lie to claim the indigent get substandard representation. |
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Jan 13, 2006 10:54:27 GMT -6
They can get lots of free legal help with firms that do Pro Bono work. Some of the top firms in the country represent death row inmates. They can get help with their appeals, esp. if they are a "superstar" like Peterson or Gacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by cynthiak on Jan 13, 2006 18:42:00 GMT -6
"over 95% of defendants cannot afford legal representation and end up being represented by court-appointed attorneys whose credentials are sometimes weak" is the system not biased against those who cannot afford attorneys with better representation? Why does this always come up? Just because they are court appointed they are not fit to defend someone? Im sure most are not some that havent even graduated yet. There is always an excuse, isnt there? |
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 13, 2006 19:40:16 GMT -6
"over 95% of defendants cannot afford legal representation and end up being represented by court-appointed attorneys whose credentials are sometimes weak" is the system not biased against those who cannot afford attorneys with better representation? NO. If it were, more than 2% of those who cannot afford to defend themselves would be executed. They might even apporach the percentage of well-off murderers who are executed. |
|
|
|
Post by think on Jan 16, 2006 3:40:59 GMT -6
There is always an excuse, isnt there?
no its not a excuse its the truth do you no how many cases those people get you think that care the much about what happens to each and every one of those people ''no'' they dont cuz they still get paid
|
|
|
|
Post by cynthiak on Jan 16, 2006 4:43:46 GMT -6
There is always an excuse, isnt there? no its not a excuse its the truth do you no how many cases those people get you think that care the much about what happens to each and every one of those people ''no'' they dont cuz they still get paid But they obviously took the job for a reason. They are attorneys. I'm 100% sure they could have joined nay law firm they wanted yet they take a job as a public defender. That tells me they WANT to do that. They WANT to defend people. If they didnt care, they wouldnt even bother investigating the facts, now would they? |
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 16, 2006 5:55:06 GMT -6
no its not a excuse its the truth do you no how many cases those people get you think that care the much about what happens to each and every one of those people ''no'' they dont cuz they still get paid All lawyers in criminal cases get paid (or not paid) regardless of the outcome of the case. So you have no point. If anything your theory would be an support an argument that lawyers for poor murderers provide better representation than for the rich. On the other hand many of the lawyers who represent murderers in DP cases are DP crudaders. I despise lawyers who try to keep murderers from being executed. But I cannot fault them for their dedication to their cause. No one can take an objective look at the results of the DP process and honestly claim that the process is biased against the poor. The big picture is that the rich murderers get executed and the poor murderers don't. |
|
