A Good Example of Good Journalism

A Good Example of Good Journalism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

joether -> A Good Example of Good Journalism (5/20/2014 11:14:47 AM)
I was driving around yesterday, and listen to piece from NPR. I was rather shocked at the information. Being poor sucks in many ways, But this is one way it hurts MORE! The article is really worth the effort if you live in the United States. The premise of the article is not complaining how the poor are fucked by court costs; but they are the most hurt of three financial groups (i.e. poor, middle class, rich). How do you feel about it? How would you fix it if you could (realistically speaking)?

mnottertail -> RE: A Good Example of Good Journalism (5/20/2014 11:17:20 AM)
This is a result of St. Wrinklemeats disasterous fiscal policy, and subsequent necessitation of 'revenue enhancements'. The checkbook has the effect of law now.

joether -> RE: A Good Example of Good Journalism (5/20/2014 11:39:34 AM)
That one is charged with a crime, must pay for their public defender..... ....Isn't that what the founding fathers fought to keep from happening? That if your to poor to afford a lawyer, the court would give you one? Free, without any strings attached? Guess we didn't see the 0.0000002 font on the US Constitution.....

smileforme50 -> RE: A Good Example of Good Journalism (5/20/2014 12:03:52 PM)
Personally.....I'm not a big advocate for criminals, ex-cons, inmates.....whatever. I know I should be more sensitive because I know that most of those people have a lot of issues that I could never imagine having in my own life, but I just can't relate to the concept of committing a felony or doing someone else extreme harm. That being said.....I was looking at that table that compares the all states and DC....and I noticed that over 40 of them charge the inmate with the "Public Defender or Legal Costs". While I like the idea of as little of my tax burden as possible going to support criminals....hell....THEY committed the crime....why shouuldn't THEY be the ones to pay for it? If you can't do the time....don't do the crime and all. BUT....if I remember correctly.....people who are arrested in the US are told that they have certain rights....their "Miranda" rights: You have the right to remain silent when questioned. Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law. (Modern readings have can and will in place of may) You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish. If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present? Doesn't making the criminals pay for their Public Defender completely contradict the Miranda rights??? Am I misunderstanding something?

mnottertail -> RE: A Good Example of Good Journalism (5/20/2014 12:11:04 PM)
Yeah, but that is not always the case, that they 'committed the crime', for a primary issue, and secondly, there is a constitutional issue, and that is everyone has a right to the trial.

smileforme50 -> RE: A Good Example of Good Journalism (5/20/2014 12:13:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Yeah, but that is not always the case, that they 'committed the crime', for a primary issue, and secondly, there is a constitutional issue, and that is everyone has a right to the trial. I don't understand what you mean.

subsam4u -> RE: A Good Example of Good Journalism (5/20/2014 12:52:18 PM)
not all the peoples that comes to court are guilty, even for them on the death trail. that's not only in the us but also in europe. but the most poorest are not so mutch opportunities as the rich to pay a solicitor and so most of them are convict

DesideriScuri -> RE: A Good Example of Good Journalism (5/20/2014 2:54:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether I was driving around yesterday, and listen to piece from NPR. I was rather shocked at the information. Being poor sucks in many ways, But this is one way it hurts MORE! The article is really worth the effort if you live in the United States. The premise of the article is not complaining how the poor are fucked by court costs; but they are the most hurt of three financial groups (i.e. poor, middle class, rich). How do you feel about it? How would you fix it if you could (realistically speaking)? Damn. The "time" should fit the crime, imo. If a guy legitimately can't afford to pay the fine for the crime he committed, the "time" for that should also fit the crime. Perhaps instead of incarceration for being too poor to pay, a way to "work off" the debt is created. Give judges the ability to make that determination based on the particulars of each case, and tailor it to the situation. Public defenders should be on the public dime, imo. I thought that was the point of them being "public" defenders.

Phydeaux -> RE: A Good Example of Good Journalism (5/20/2014 4:52:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether I was driving around yesterday, and listen to piece from NPR. I was rather shocked at the information. Being poor sucks in many ways, But this is one way it hurts MORE! The article is really worth the effort if you live in the United States. The premise of the article is not complaining how the poor are fucked by court costs; but they are the most hurt of three financial groups (i.e. poor, middle class, rich). How do you feel about it? How would you fix it if you could (realistically speaking)? Damn. The "time" should fit the crime, imo. If a guy legitimately can't afford to pay the fine for the crime he committed, the "time" for that should also fit the crime. Perhaps instead of incarceration for being too poor to pay, a way to "work off" the debt is created. Give judges the ability to make that determination based on the particulars of each case, and tailor it to the situation. Public defenders should be on the public dime, imo. I thought that was the point of them being "public" defenders. More of this crap is inevitable lawyers are charging $350/hr for ad litem and public defender duties here...

joether -> RE: A Good Example of Good Journalism (5/21/2014 12:45:52 AM)
The point of the article is not whether one is guilty or innocent, but they are paying court costs regardless. Yes, you defended yourself in court, but unfortunately, the costs basically bankrupt your financial ability to pay the court costs, so you end up going to jail anyways. How messed up is that? Even worst for the nation's poor, whom the law should be protecting is instead, preying upon them. Its one thing if the person is guilty; but when they are innocent?

Zonie63 -> RE: A Good Example of Good Journalism (5/21/2014 7:05:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether The point of the article is not whether one is guilty or innocent, but they are paying court costs regardless. Yes, you defended yourself in court, but unfortunately, the costs basically bankrupt your financial ability to pay the court costs, so you end up going to jail anyways. How messed up is that? Even worst for the nation's poor, whom the law should be protecting is instead, preying upon them. Its one thing if the person is guilty; but when they are innocent? Yes, I agree this is pretty messed up. I'm just thinking, though: Wouldn't it cost more to house and feed them in jail than the amount they would have gotten from the court fees?

angelikaJ -> RE: A Good Example of Good Journalism (5/21/2014 7:57:09 AM)
FR There is also this issue: "Debtors' prisons were outlawed in the United States nearly 200 years ago. And more than 30 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear: Judges cannot send someone to jail just because they are too poor to pay their court fines.That decision came in a 1983 case called Bearden v. Georgia, which held that a judge must first consider whether the defendant has the ability to pay, but "willfully" refuses. ... "

SadistDave -> RE: A Good Example of Good Journalism (5/23/2014 3:15:04 AM)
I favor a free-market solution. A literal interpretation of Miranda suggests that a defense attorney should be free for those who cannot afford it, but doesn't madate the quality or experience of the lawyer to be assigned. Pass the cost of defending the poor on to students. I think that serving a limited term of one year doing pro-bono work that would be overseen by universities should be required to graduate with a law degree. (It's basically the same idea as a medical internship.) Essentially, the lawyer being provided would be the legal professors and the students would work the trials under supervision. Students would be required to take cases assigned to them and their win/loss ratio would most likely make them more competetive since they would want to land jobs with the best law firms in their fields. The better students would likely go to private firms. Even so, the rest would still be better prepared for work in the public sector when they graduated. The bigger the cases a student can win, the more likely he or she is to land the best job. That should make students some of the most competetive defense attorneys available. Of course the court would have the oversight of what cases would go to students. For instance, defending a violent offender should be handled through the Public Defenders office. Defense attorneys aside, there are many aspects of legal study. A pro-bono requirement for social aspects of the law could make it less expensive for the poor to have affordable legal counsel in divorces, property rights claims/disputes, tax disputes, personal injury, and just about every aspect of the law. A separate program of internship could be set up for businesses to sponsor students learning business law, corporate tort law, etc.. Meh.... it's just a thought. -SD-

LafayetteLady -> RE: A Good Example of Good Journalism (5/23/2014 10:36:17 AM)
Its also a thought that shows a lack of knowledge regarding law school education, entry level attorneys and how the leegal system works. Law students participate in moot court, where their mistakes cause no damage. Law firms don't send new lawyers to trial as a first chair. And yes, there are things regarding the "experience and quality" of an attorney. Not contitutional but statutory. Itgs call ineffectual counsel.

SadistDave -> RE: A Good Example of Good Journalism (5/23/2014 2:16:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Its also a thought that shows a lack of knowledge regarding law school education, entry level attorneys and how the leegal system works. Law students participate in moot court, where their mistakes cause no damage. Law firms don't send new lawyers to trial as a first chair. And yes, there are things regarding the "experience and quality" of an attorney. Not contitutional but statutory. Itgs call ineffectual counsel. The OPs question asks how one would fix a problem. The word "fix" implies change. How students study the law would obviously have to change. -SD-

LafayetteLady -> RE: A Good Example of Good Journalism (5/23/2014 3:03:18 PM)
So what you advocate is that poorr people get ineefective counsel from students? Not a reasonable solution. Yes, some change is required but as much as the OP indicates the article is a great example of good reporting, it leaves quite a bit out. In my area, PD fees can be waived through application to the court. A PD application aloneprovides financial information. Some people receive an atttorney completely free (I did), other pay only the application fee and some pay greatly rrreduced rrate. The problem isn't with PD fees as much as it is with unaffordable fines.

SadistDave -> RE: A Good Example of Good Journalism (5/23/2014 6:44:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady So what you advocate is that poorr people get ineefective counsel from students? Not a reasonable solution. Yes, some change is required but as much as the OP indicates the article is a great example of good reporting, it leaves quite a bit out. In my area, PD fees can be waived through application to the court. A PD application aloneprovides financial information. Some people receive an atttorney completely free (I did), other pay only the application fee and some pay greatly rrreduced rrate. The problem isn't with PD fees as much as it is with unaffordable fines. Okay.... I think I may not have been clear, and I apologize for that. The way our system works now, a law student recieves a degree and passes the bar. At that point they can go out and practice law. Isn't that essentially correct? All I'm saying is that the time of study should be extended one year in order to give students (who would already be qualified to practice law under our current system anyway) practical experience under supervision to do pro-bono work. I'm also suggesting that capital cases, violent offenders, etc be taken care of by our current Public Defenders. That way students would gain experience doing the type of daily nonsense that bogs down Public Defenders offices and more people who really can't afford a lawyer would still be getting someone qualified (under our current system) to practice law with the benefit of a legal scholars supervision. Fines are a different issue. I'm really kind of fine with them, but I wouldn't be opposed to reasonable reforms. -SD-

LafayetteLady -> RE: A Good Example of Good Journalism (5/23/2014 8:09:21 PM)
They arentt qualified until they pass the bar. While in theory, they can hang their own shingle after passing, most wouldn't have any business. That's why they either jjoin a firm or go the state route which is either the state attorney or PD office. At that time they STILL aren't trusted to do trial work. They work under seasoned attorneys doing the "crap" work; reesearrcch, running around, etc. To free up the experienced attorneys time. Poor people have trouble paying fines and when they fall behind, some jurisdictions issue warrants. Then the poor aree sitting in jail while those who aren't poor are not because they could afford the fines.

SadistDave -> RE: A Good Example of Good Journalism (5/24/2014 3:18:08 AM)
Alright, since you obviously don't understand that the lawyer conversation is not supposed to be a conversation about how things work right now, I'm not discussing it with you anymore. I don't know how much clearer I can make it that that's a "How about we try _____ if the current system is so bad?" kinda thing. Fines and fees, fine are a different topic though. Yes, there are poor people. Believe it or not there are poor people who DON'T commit crimes and rack up fines and fees they can't afford to pay. There are poor people that DON'T get thrown in the pokey because they burgled someones home or raped someones grandmother. Your argument that poor criminals can't get away with it as easily as rich criminals so we need to be soft on poor criminals seems a little misguided. Rich or poor, we're talking about people who break the law. It would be more sensible to make it harder for people to get reduced fines and sentences just because they can afford an expensive lawyer. -SD-

joether -> RE: A Good Example of Good Journalism (5/24/2014 8:02:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave I favor a free-market solution. A literal interpretation of Miranda suggests that a defense attorney should be free for those who cannot afford it, but doesn't madate the quality or experience of the lawyer to be assigned. Pass the cost of defending the poor on to students. All persons are treated....EQUALLY....under the law. Obliviously you never got that concept in US History. Its not certain types of people, but all persons found doing wrong by society within the government's control/domain. That means regardless of any other feature of the individual, they are given the same lawyer as anybody else. There is no such thing as a 'student lawyer', unless you are to say one is 'practicing law' like a MEDICAL DOCTOR (that would be a person that has studied, pass tests for certifications, and residence) 'practices medicine'. In order to be an actual lawyer, one has to attend higher education and past the state/federal bar examinations. And those tests are not the 4th grader mathematic tests that you are used to either! quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave I think that serving a limited term of one year doing pro-bono work that would be overseen by universities should be required to graduate with a law degree. (It's basically the same idea as a medical internship.) Essentially, the lawyer being provided would be the legal professors and the students would work the trials under supervision. Students would be required to take cases assigned to them and their win/loss ratio would most likely make them more competetive since they would want to land jobs with the best law firms in their fields. The better students would likely go to private firms. Even so, the rest would still be better prepared for work in the public sector when they graduated. That would be an interesting, idea, except for two important things: A ) The US Constitution There is just to many items to list here ranging from the Miranda Rights to the 5th amendment. The laws themselves preclude the establishment of this process at current. B ) The Founding Fathers The founding fathers believed that justice and liberty should always trump over mob justice, and unequal representation. That a lawyer gains skill, insight and experience the longer they perform their duties in and outside of court; and that becomes a commodity to be tapped at any time, to keep the least fortunate from being under served by government. Both of those ideas (A & B) is why some public defenders are young, some old, and the remainder are somewhere in-between. Which is also why in many states, the defendant can request new defenders. Usually that involves the defendant bringing in a hired lawyer to defend themselves. Which is why you might see a relatively well-off individual being represented by a public defender at their arrangement, because the guy's lawyer could not get to the court house in time. But later represents the defendant in court. quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave The bigger the cases a student can win, the more likely he or she is to land the best job. That should make students some of the most competetive defense attorneys available. Of course the court would have the oversight of what cases would go to students. For instance, defending a violent offender should be handled through the Public Defenders office. Defense attorneys aside, there are many aspects of legal study. A pro-bono requirement for social aspects of the law could make it less expensive for the poor to have affordable legal counsel in divorces, property rights claims/disputes, tax disputes, personal injury, and just about every aspect of the law. A separate program of internship could be set up for businesses to sponsor students learning business law, corporate tort law, etc.. Meh.... it's just a thought. I believe this nation benefits by leaps and bounds by NOT listening to your thoughts on this matter. You would water down liberty for those less fortunate then yourself, but are equally as much a citizen of this nation as you are. Would you desire to have a young, student lawyer that has not pass the bar exam in your state, nor any real long-term experience in and outside of a court room, defending your hide from Murder 1? The courts in Massachusetts do not usually give someone a public defender with less than five years of experience.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875