On-Topic Justice and (our) humanity

[Benvolio]

That's not what it says.

But if it did, are you maintaining that immigrants are unfairly targeted, which is the thrust of the thread?

Come back with actual figures and tell us what they actually say, and show that immigrants are unfairly targeted, or this issue is no longer relevant to this thread.

That was never my point. I was following up on Brian's emphasis on poverty and absence of opportunities being a major part of the crime problem and the failure of the criminal justice system. Your attempt to divert this to a discussion of alleged unfair targeting of immigrants is off topic. Go back and read your original post and listen to the link.

 

[Kulindahr]

That was never my point. I was following up on Brian's emphasis on poverty and absence of opportunities being a major part of the crime problem and the failure of the criminal justice system. Your attempt to divert this to a discussion of alleged unfair targeting of immigrants is off topic. Go back and read your original post and listen to the link.

He made no such point. The point he made was that poverty and absence of opportunities mean you don't get justice, you get treated as guilty before the cops even talk to you. Remember the statistics he shared about how much more likely someone poor or black is to get arrested, convicted, and punished as severely as possible?

That's what he's talking about -- identity and perceptions. He's talking about exactly the perception you have of immigrants, your automatic assumption that they're bad, criminal, etc., an assumption that in practice means they get arrested for things white people with money don't, they get convicted more often whether guilty or not, etc.

I've listened to his talk eight times now -- and I happen to have written my original post. You heard what you wanted to hear, but you didn't hear what you need to: that you're one of the people who is part of the problem.

 

[palbert]

I have tried to follow this thread but am not sure what it's about anymore. If that's not derailing it is certainly being off course.

That said:

Basically the protection of legal rights and liberty is being dismantled, where they existed at all. Legal aid was always underfunded, if ever funded with more than lip-service. Death penalty appeals, if not pro se are pro bono. If because of high profile a jurisdiction must fund a criminal defense the cost could well render the jurisdiction bankrupt or nearly so. Until someone can find a way to fund criminal defense -- as required by SCOTUS -- we have an insoluble problem.

While it may be easy for some to criticize the legal aid lawyer many of them are extremely dedicated. Circumstances dictate that they are overburdened, with too little time or resources to do each case justice. True, many of them may not be the brightest bulb in the hallway, but that is a matter of recruitment, and recruitment is a matter of money. (Plus, I've known many a lawyer I didn't consider very bright but they still won cases.)

Coming from practicing law in a community with a high percentage of immigrants I can say trying to shift this onto immigrants is a "dog that won't hunt."

I hope I have not strayed from the confines of the Topic.

 

[Kulindahr]

Basically the protection of legal rights and liberty is being dismantled, where they existed at all. Legal aid was always underfunded, if ever funded with more than lip-service. Death penalty appeals, if not pro se are pro bono. If because of high profile a jurisdiction must fund a criminal defense the cost could well render the jurisdiction bankrupt or nearly so. Until someone can find a way to fund criminal defense -- as required by SCOTUS -- we have an insoluble problem.

While it may be easy for some to criticize the legal aid lawyer many of them are extremely dedicated. Circumstances dictate that they are overburdened, with too little time or resources to do each case justice. True, many of them may not be the brightest bulb in the hallway, but that is a matter of recruitment, and recruitment is a matter of money. (Plus, I've known many a lawyer I didn't consider very bright but they still won cases.)

Coming from practicing law in a community with a high percentage of immigrants I can say trying to shift this onto immigrants is a "dog that won't hunt."

I hope I have not strayed from the confines of the Topic.

You may be the most on-topic yet.

It's sad that submitting such a creative motion as to request that his client be tried like a wealthy white male sparked such argument as he describes. It tells me that there's a great resistance to actual equality before the law, despite what should have been settled with the Civil War.

I agree about funding defense. Perhaps a 10% surtax on attorney incomes would make a start.

 

[palbert]

.... I agree about funding defense. Perhaps a 10% surtax on attorney incomes would make a start.

I don't know how you would do that. I spent so many of my, and my clerks and associates, very rewarding hours doing pro bono environmental and cultural inatitution work, and I know many lawyers who do the same, that such may enter any taxing equation. Would that be taxable? (Interestingly, whenever I told a service provider that my work was pro bono they willingly waived charges.)

In many ways we tax the health care professions and institutions by imposing care requirements on them, to say nothing of Medicare's (and others) compromised reimbursement rate. (I consider that a tax much like an unfunded mandate to the states.) No such burden falls on the equally importamt legal profession.

I can hope that in future we will see national legal insurance with concomitant power to insure justice. There is something there or private insurance wouldn't be getting in that act. As it is now legal rights-- as opposed to actual rights -- are made by non-profits and pro bono work, generally by the larger firms. We need to find a way to translate that to the trial court level.

(I have deliberately not discussed judges, reserving that to a later non-holiday post.)

 

[Benvolio]

Let's not forget the the vast majority of accused people are guilty, and crimes are by their nature, against society. I find it hard to accept that the public, as victims of the crimes, are then expected to pay higher taxes to help the criminals get off. We already pay for public defenders and the law is slanted dramatically in favor of the accused. Enough is enough.

 

[palbert]

.... Enough is enough.

I agree.

 

[Benvolio]

I find it hard to believe you are in the tax bracket proposed to incur higher rates.

You are partially right. I pay Federal and State income taxes, but the present proposals to raise rates on the higher bracket would not get me. But even with those raises we will continue to go broke. Make no mistake, the Democrats will always look for ways to confiscate more from anyone who is not poor.

Not every lawyer wants to be the champion of the crack dealers, the robbers, the burglars and the muggers.
If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime, and don't expect the tax-paying minority to hire an army of lawyers to get you off.

 

[lambdaboy]

I lost faith in the American justice system when they put people behind bars in Guantanamo without a trial. If they are guilty they should be given a fair trial. I lost all respect and now live in London. By the way I am a white former Catholic Atheist.

 

[palbert]

So far as this discussion is concerned taxes are a red herring.

Courts, including SCOTUS, have found that the Sixth Amendement requires effective counsel, from plea bargain through trial where loss of liberty is at stake. It is that mandate that is honored more in the breach than the observance. The courts have not said that taxes were a legitimate rein on that right. It doesn't matter whether or not I think the defendant is guilty of heinous crimes. Until SCOTUS rules otherwise that is the law.

The authorities are too numerous to cite. Google "constitutional right to effective counsel."

 

[opinterph]

So far as this discussion is concerned taxes are a red herring.

Courts, including SCOTUS, have found that the Sixth Amendment requires effective counsel, from plea bargain through trial where loss of liberty is at stake.

It is interesting to note that many death penalty appeals are not provided competent court appointed counsel. Does that explain why your earlier post indicated that most death penalty appeals are pro bono or pro se?


http://www.schr.org/counsel

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/right-to-assistance-of-counsel-first-appeal.html

Basically the protection of legal rights and liberty is being dismantled, where they existed at all. Legal aid was always under funded, if ever funded with more than lip-service. Death penalty appeals, if not pro se are pro bono.

 

[palbert]

@ opinterph

I reply here because of the nature of your question.

Death peenalty appeals are arduous and technical. Frequently they come from "prison lawyers" or the defendant alone (pro se); I do not disprage such cases, several have prompted landmark decisions (particularly from the Warren Court). At the other end are pro bono cases handled by organizations like the Innocence Project or private law firms; I think of these cases as involving intriguing legal issues or egregious wrongs in the judicial process.

The problem lies with the cases that fall between the two extremes above. Even if they do not involve the death penalty the right to counsel should obtain where loss of liberty is at stake. Unfortunately, I believe the Sixth Amendment applies only to the trial level. If this is in fact true it would explain why there are so few successful appeals "in the middle."

To all this I submit the vagaries of appellate judges. I recall a Florida appellate case where the court said that the rules required only the filing of a brief, they did not require a good brief.

 

[Benvolio]

Actually, the 6th Amendment says that the accused shall have the right "to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." At the time and until the 60s, that meant he could hire a lawyer. It did not mean the right to have taxpayers pay for it. Supreme Court then amended the Constitution to say that they were entitled have counsel at taxpayers expense. OK, no one is really fighting that. Now the complaint is the Marxist complaint that some people unfairly have more money than others and can hire more and better lawyers than ordinary criminals. That is what really gripes the liberals.
The problem is the perception that rich criminals get off and therefore poor people who commit crimes should also have an army of lawyers--at someone else's expense--to get them off.
On death sentence appeals, counsel is provided at taxpayer expense for the first appeal. But many people oppose the death penalty. Therefore, regardless of guilt or innocence, groups or lawyers will voluntarily help to delay and delay and delay the sentence with endless motions for rehearings and new trial. It is mistakenly called pro bono publico, begging the question of whether endless and frivolous appeals are really for the benefit of the people. Manifestly, it is for the benefit of the public for the criminal laws to be enforced and criminals punished.

 

[palbert]

For the most part cases are won or lost at the trial court level; they arrive at the appellate level with a presumption of correctness. To deny truly competent counsel, with the funds to investigate (e.g., DNA) the case, is to deny constitutionally protected rights.

I don't have to like this any more than others do. It is the law. And it is also a fact that many trials are defended by less than competent legal aid or appointed counsel going through the motions of providing a defense. (I know that I am not competent to handle a criminal defense.)

Perhaps the Justice Department should step in and promulgate directives to ensure constitutional compliance.

 

[maxpowr9]

I lost faith in the American justice system when they put people behind bars in Guantanamo without a trial. If they are guilty they should be given a fair trial. I lost all respect and now live in London. By the way I am a white former Catholic Atheist.

That only applies to American citizens just like the Constitution. You would be surprised how few rights immigrants have in the US until they become citizens. This is one of the key issues I deviate from the Liberals on.

 

[palbert]

I am not in a position to discuss constitutional protections afforded the various categories of immigrants. I will be content if we can afford constitutional rights to citizens. The immigrant debate looming in Congress may address this issue. We can address their problems at a later date.

 

[JayHawk]

Actually, the 6th Amendment says that the accused shall have the right "to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." At the time and until the 60s, that meant he could hire a lawyer. It did not mean the right to have taxpayers pay for it. Supreme Court then amended the Constitution to say that they were entitled have counsel at taxpayers expense. OK, no one is really fighting that. Now the complaint is the Marxist complaint that some people unfairly have more money than others and can hire more and better lawyers than ordinary criminals. That is what really gripes the liberals.
The problem is the perception that rich criminals get off and therefore poor people who commit crimes should also have an army of lawyers--at someone else's expense--to get them off.
On death sentence appeals, counsel is provided at taxpayer expense for the first appeal. But many people oppose the death penalty. Therefore, regardless of guilt or innocence, groups or lawyers will voluntarily help to delay and delay and delay the sentence with endless motions for rehearings and new trial. It is mistakenly called pro bono publico, begging the question of whether endless and frivolous appeals are really for the benefit of the people. Manifestly, it is for the benefit of the public for the criminal laws to be enforced and criminals punished.

Benvolio's point of view: If you are poor you must be guilty.

 

[maxpowr9]

Benvolio's point of view: If you are poor you must be guilty.

There is some truth to that [see: corporate-run arbitration] but hardly the exception.

 

[JayHawk]

I lost faith in the American justice system when they put people behind bars in Guantanamo without a trial. If they are guilty they should be given a fair trial. I lost all respect and now live in London. By the way I am a white former Catholic Atheist.

Unfortunately this has nothing to do with the justice system. It has become a method of delivering a political black eye. First by liberals blocking military tribunals when Bush was in office and now by right wingers trying to prevent Obama from keeping campaign promises so they are obstructing his ability to try these criminals in federal courts. If ever brought to trial every one of the GTMO detainees will be found guilty.

 

[Benvolio]

No, but as I said, the vast majority of accused are guilty.

The people in Guantanamo should be considered prisoners of war. They are not accused of a crime as such and therefore cannot be given a trial. But we are entitled to hold them until the war is over. What else should be done with prisoners of war?