Criminal Justice and the Rule of Law
- Why might the government not want to give lawyers to every single person accused of any crime or of breaking any law, no matter how minor?
The rule of law requires that laws be adopted in accordance with established procedures, that they are made known to the public, and that they are enforced. Now about a half-century ago, the American Supreme Court ruled out that anyone too poor to hire a lawyer must be given one free in any criminal case involving a felony charge. However, at times the government might fail to provide alawyertoevery single person accused of a crime; this is because sometimes the cases may be too many. Too many cases mean that the government may lack enough funds to hire competent lawyers that would present each and every criminal.
- How do you think the government should pay for the criminal lawyers that will represent people free of charge?
The American legal system was built on the concept of the rule of law, and all citizens are subjected tobe governed by the rule of law. Due to this reason, therefore, I think that the government should have lawyers on a standby mode ho would be assigned to clients who are poor or can’t afford to hire one. By so doing, these lawyers would be paid like any other government employee. It would be cheap this way rather than hiring private lawyers when a case arises.
3). Do you think we should have a public defender system, or should the government simply pay private attorneys, and why? Please include the pros and cons of a public defender system versus appointing private attorneys
I am for the opinion that the government should have a public defender system rather than having to hire private attorneys eachtime a case arises. According to the 6th amendment bill of 1963, a public defender would step in to represent a person who has demonstrated an inability to hire an attorney (Cohen, 04). The pros and cons of public defenders compared to private attorneys include; public defenders provide a free legal presentation to people compared to private attorneys where one has to pay for the same services although both of them have the same legal knowledge. Public defenders may have vast experience since they are always representing clients in the courts; private attorneys may have a good experience. However, they have limited clients since not everyone can afford to hire one. On the other side of cons, public defenders are mostly overworked; thus they may fail to advocate for some defendants properly. Public defenders also have fewer or limited resources to commit to a single case.. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
Works Cited
Caplan, Lincoln. “The Right to Counsel: Badly Battered at 50.” The New York Times, 9 Mar. 2013.
Cohen, Thomas H. “Who is Better at Defending Criminals? Does Type of Defense Attorney Matter in Terms of Producing Favorable Case Outcomes.” Criminal Justice Policy Review, vol. 25, no. 1, 2012, pp. 29-58.
“Defending Gideon.” The Constitution Project, archive.constitutionproject.org/publications-resources/defending-gideon/.