Do the rich / affluent get a break in the legal system?

[AndyBoyd 0]

"As John Mellencamp sang: "that's just the way it is. Some things will never change.""

Wasn't that Bruce Hornsby?

As far as the OP's question, of course people with more $ get better legal services, just like they get better medical care, better housing, better food, and more tunnel time. :)

[BDashe 0]

double edged sword- they may be able to afford a better attorney for smaller stuff, but you have just as many @$$holes in the world looking for any excuse to sue them, basically legal extortion.

Burglar falling on a knife comes to mind...

Additionally with Sarbanes-Oxley, the wonderful government has given any @$$hole the right to go after publicly held business executives on financial and criminal terms because said executive didn't make enough money for stock holders, one of many MANY other ridiculous items in that Act.

so essentially lose lose no matter what your income level, just try to never find yourself leaving your fate into the hands of 12 of your "peers."

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983

[377 22]

Quote

"As John Mellencamp sang: "that's just the way it is. Some things will never change.""

Wasn't that Bruce Hornsby?

You are right, it is BH, my mistake. Thanks.

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

"As John Mellencamp sang: "that's just the way it is. Some things will never change.""

Wasn't that Bruce Hornsby?

You are right, it is BH, my mistake. Thanks.

Sorry, too late. It nullifies all of your posts.

[377 22]

harmless error, counsel

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

That's the question, do the rich get an easier time in civil or criminal court?

Are you asking whether the rich get an easier time in civil court versus criminl court?

Or are you asking whether the entire legal system gives them "a break"?

Your subject line does not appear to be asking the same thing as your body message.

In any case, no, I don't think they get a break from the system. Can they afford better, more practiced lawyers who have learned the law, and learned how to present a case more effectively, sure. Just like the rich can afford to drive more reliable, safer, better-performing cars. EVERYONE gets his chance to get defended in court, though.

Even the pisspot who shoves a knife into someone to get money for his next hit of meth. (By the way, YOU pay for HIS lawyers. And his appeals. And his meals, and place to sleep. Probably for some high school or college courses, too. Have fun!)

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Can you say OJ?

OJ probably would've gotten off if he'd had a public defender. The defense did not win that case; the prosecution lost it. They did a very poor job educating the jury. When your case hinges on DNA and your jury walks out saying they didn't take the DNA into consideration because lots of people have the same "blood type", you have failed in educating your jury in how DNA works. Had the jury understood DNA, the prosecutor would have gotten their conviction. They brought in too many experts who were talking over the heads of the jury, who got so lost in grad-school level genetics when they needed middle school level biology that they latched on to the phrase "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit!"

There are many very good public defenders and some very bad ones, and some very good private defense attorneys and some very bad ones. Just because you're paying for legal counsel doesn't mean it's better than the public defender.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>OJ probably would've gotten off if he'd had a public defender. The defense did not win that case; the prosecution lost it. They did a very poor job educating the jury. When your case hinges on DNA and your jury walks out saying they didn't take the DNA into consideration because lots of people have the same "blood type", you have failed in educating your jury in how DNA works. Had the jury understood DNA, the prosecutor would have gotten their conviction.


If and only if the jury ignored the pathetic police work where they mixed and contaminated DNA sites.


>>>>>>>>>>>>Just because you're paying for legal counsel doesn't mean it's better than the public defender.

And if you were charged you would go with a private defender.....nuff said.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

And if you were charged you would go with a private defender.....nuff said.

How do you know that? If I were charged, there are a couple of people I would call, several of whom are public defenders as their day jobs. They're excellent attorneys. It's not a matter of "going with" a public defender or private counsel. The court looks at your finances and tells you if you can afford private counsel, and that's the end of it. I would have to hire counsel outside of the public defender system because the court would tell me I could afford my own attorney, nevermind it would bankrupt me to do it.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

And if you were charged you would go with a private defender.....nuff said.

There are about 10 attorneys to whom I regularly refer-out criminal defense work that I choose not to keep. 3 of them are not ex-PD's, and I send them minor, simple misdemeanor cases. As for the other 7, all of whom happen to be superb attorneys, and to whom I send the most serious, complex cases, every one of them is an ex-PD.
...nuff said.

[birdlike 0]

Here's an idea.

People are pumping the idea of a single-payer health care system. All of the money to pay for health care would come out of one pot of taxes, and everyone would be covered.

Why not the same thing for LEGAL DEFENSE?

No one would be allowed to hire his own attorney, because everyone's legal defense would be paid for and provided by the state. No rich person would get a better deal than any poor person. It would be very egalitarian.



Now, I know some of the reasons why people would oppose this. First of all, the concept that any attorney working for and paid by the state, even if his job is to "defend you," has a conflict of interest.

But that reason for opposing state-provided legal defense goes back to the defense of the concept that those who have money to pay for a highly qualified attorney should be able to purchase for themselves the best defense their money can buy. You cannot force them to accept inadequate legal representation just to keep them equal with the indigent, particularly not when their public defender walks into court under the cloud of a conflict of interest. Let's remember that The State is trying to prove him guilty, and The State is paying for his attorney.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Here's an idea.

People are pumping the idea of a single-payer health care system. All of the money to pay for health care would come out of one pot of taxes, and everyone would be covered.

Why not the same thing for LEGAL DEFENSE?

No one would be allowed to hire his own attorney, because everyone's legal defense would be paid for and provided by the state. No rich person would get a better deal than any poor person. It would be very egalitarian.



Now, I know some of the reasons why people would oppose this. First of all, the concept that any attorney working for and paid by the state, even if his job is to "defend you," has a conflict of interest.

But that reason for opposing state-provided legal defense goes back to the defense of the concept that those who have money to pay for a highly qualified attorney should be able to purchase for themselves the best defense their money can buy. You cannot force them to accept inadequate legal representation just to keep them equal with the indigent, particularly not when their public defender walks into court under the cloud of a conflict of interest. Let's remember that The State is trying to prove him guilty, and The State is paying for his attorney.

Isn’t that what we have in place in our district, State, & federal attorneys?

They are paid through tax money to defend the law as it represents the standard codes of behavior among/between citizens, citizens and non-personal entities (corporations), and argues that they reflect the collective interests/rights of all the people of the city, State, or nation (e.g., to not have serial killers, illegal drug dealers, etc unrestrained) … not the interests/rights of a geographical piece of property or a building but the people who inhabit that the areas within the boundary.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

Isn’t that what we have in place in our district, State, & federal attorneys?

They are paid through tax money to defend the law as it represents the standard codes of behavior among/between citizens, citizens and non-personal entities (corporations), and argues that they reflect the collective interests/rights of all the people of the city, State, or nation (e.g., to not have serial killers, illegal drug dealers, etc unrestrained) … not the interests/rights of a geographical piece of property or a building but the people who inhabit that the areas within the boundary.

VR/Marg

Theory and practice seem to diverge on this one.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Here's an idea.

People are pumping the idea of a single-payer health care system. All of the money to pay for health care would come out of one pot of taxes, and everyone would be covered.

Why not the same thing for LEGAL DEFENSE?

No one would be allowed to hire his own attorney, because everyone's legal defense would be paid for and provided by the state. No rich person would get a better deal than any poor person. It would be very egalitarian.



Now, I know some of the reasons why people would oppose this. First of all, the concept that any attorney working for and paid by the state, even if his job is to "defend you," has a conflict of interest.

But that reason for opposing state-provided legal defense goes back to the defense of the concept that those who have money to pay for a highly qualified attorney should be able to purchase for themselves the best defense their money can buy. You cannot force them to accept inadequate legal representation just to keep them equal with the indigent, particularly not when their public defender walks into court under the cloud of a conflict of interest. Let's remember that The State is trying to prove him guilty, and The State is paying for his attorney.

Isn’t that what we have in place in our district, State, & federal attorneys?

They are paid through tax money to defend the law as it represents the standard codes of behavior among/between citizens, citizens and non-personal entities (corporations), and argues that they reflect the collective interests/rights of all the people of the city, State, or nation (e.g., to not have serial killers, illegal drug dealers, etc unrestrained) … not the interests/rights of a geographical piece of property or a building but the people who inhabit that the areas within the boundary.

VR/Marg

I'm really not understanding what you are getting at. What are you talking about, differentiating between defending the rights of a building?? Did I say anything about that?

All I was doing was pointing out that the State (not "a" state, "the" State" prosecutes criminals as representatives of the People of the jurisdiction. That same government entity provides a state-paid defense attorney to defend the criminal defendant against the charges, with the hope and avowed goal of getting him acquitted. I believe a claim can be made that this presents a conflict of interest.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Here's an idea.

People are pumping the idea of a single-payer health care system. All of the money to pay for health care would come out of one pot of taxes, and everyone would be covered.

Why not the same thing for LEGAL DEFENSE?

No one would be allowed to hire his own attorney, because everyone's legal defense would be paid for and provided by the state. No rich person would get a better deal than any poor person. It would be very egalitarian.



Now, I know some of the reasons why people would oppose this. First of all, the concept that any attorney working for and paid by the state, even if his job is to "defend you," has a conflict of interest.

But that reason for opposing state-provided legal defense goes back to the defense of the concept that those who have money to pay for a highly qualified attorney should be able to purchase for themselves the best defense their money can buy. You cannot force them to accept inadequate legal representation just to keep them equal with the indigent, particularly not when their public defender walks into court under the cloud of a conflict of interest. Let's remember that The State is trying to prove him guilty, and The State is paying for his attorney.

Isn’t that what we have in place in our district, State, & federal attorneys?

They are paid through tax money to defend the law as it represents the standard codes of behavior among/between citizens, citizens and non-personal entities (corporations), and argues that they reflect the collective interests/rights of all the people of the city, State, or nation (e.g., to not have serial killers, illegal drug dealers, etc unrestrained) … not the interests/rights of a geographical piece of property or a building but the people who inhabit that the areas within the boundary.

I'm really not understanding what you are getting at. What are you talking about, differentiating between defending the rights of a building?? Did I say anything about that?

All I was doing was pointing out that the State (not "a" state, "the" State" prosecutes criminals as representatives of the People of the jurisdiction. That same government entity provides a state-paid defense attorney to defend the criminal defendant against the charges, with the hope and avowed goal of getting him acquitted. I believe a claim can be made that this presents a conflict of interest.

All I was doing was pointing out that our legal system is already set up as you described on the prosecution side. Attorneys (i.e., local prosecutors, State attorneys, federal attorneys) representing the people are already paid by the people through taxes.

Would you propose that the USG or State governments purchase for themselves what you describe as the “best” legal representation that money can buy? Hypothetically, if the USG or a State does not do that are they derelict in doing the utmost to protect the interest of the people whom they represent (i.e., all the law-abiding citizens)?

Otoh, should every federal or State case (investigation &/or prosecution) be open for bidding? What is in the interest of the people then? Low-bidder or high-bidder (if one accepts that the “best” legal representation correlates to the highest cost)? Fixed fee or cost plus?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying