NationStates Jolt Archive

Looking back at the Jackson, Bronson, and OJ trials and their "Not Guilty" verdicts, are celebs viewed differently in the courtroom? Are they granted a certain amount of leniency due to their popular status? Or, are they able to pay for high powered, high priced lawyers and investigative staff to present a better defense? Your ordinary guy, facing similar charges, would have to depend on a lower priced, less experienced attorney, or maybe even a public defender. He wouldn't have the funds available to hire investigators, expert witnesses, etc. Would he have an equal chance of winning the court battle as a wealthy defendant?

In my opinion, it appears that justice depends on your bank account. I don't believe that we should have to buy justice. But, if we were to adopt a free legal representation policy, how would the quality of our legal professionals be affected, if at all?

yeah the "rich" get a better deal than the "poor" but what can be done about it?

the only time it really bothers me is when indigent defendants facing the death penalty are given lawyers who not only know nothing about defending death penalty cases but arent even criminal lawyers or its their first case.

Looking back at the Jackson, Bronson, and OJ trials and their "Not Guilty" verdicts, are celebs viewed differently in the courtroom? Are they granted a certain amount of leniency due to their popular status? Or, are they able to pay for high powered, high priced lawyers and investigative staff to present a better defense? Your ordinary guy, facing similar charges, would have to depend on a lower priced, less experienced attorney, or maybe even a public defender. He wouldn't have the funds available to hire investigators, expert witnesses, etc. Would he have an equal chance of winning the court battle as a wealthy defendant?

In my opinion, it appears that justice depends on your bank account. I don't believe that we should have to buy justice. But, if we were to adopt a free legal representation policy, how would the quality of our legal professionals be affected, if at all?

It's true. Quite often, trials are not about innocence or guilt, but about who has the best lawyer. Should it be this way? There are probably some who think so, but I don't. Can we do anything about it? Not without radical reforms, and as the US Declaration of Independance says, people don't like change without a very good reason (So I paraphrased a little).

Yes, we could declare that in every trial there has to be some sort of matching of lawyers beforehand - sort of like a formal duel, but with high-paid liars, I mean lawyers, instead of swords or pistols - but people would find a way to cheat around that. So we're sort of stuck.

In this case, I don't think his celebrity status was much of a factor as was the issue of his accusers being bold-faced liars.

Or...you know...the American Judicial System actually worked.

In my opinion, it appears that justice depends on your bank account. I don't believe that we should have to buy justice. But, if we were to adopt a free legal representation policy, how would the quality of our legal professionals be affected, if at all?

I agree with your first statement, that Justice depends on your wealth.

Unfortunately, I can't see how to fix it.

The 7th Amendment to the US Constitution already grants individuals the right to a lawyer regardless of whether or not they can pay for one.

This was stated to be the case in Gideon v Wainright, US supreme court, 1963.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=372&invol=335

See, money does buy happiness.

[snip]
In my opinion, it appears that justice depends on your bank account. I don't believe that we should have to buy justice. But, if we were to adopt a free legal representation policy, how would the quality of our legal professionals be affected, if at all?

It wouldnt be affected.

I think it would be effected. Most public defenders have overwhelming caseloads and only have a few moments to meet with each client. Some of them are downright incompetent and couldn't pracice in a free market. Otherts are very inexperienced. Face it, good attorneys with experience don't work for the PD's office.

Actually, the lawyers aren't the biggest problem. The biggest problem is the jury selection sequence. You end up with the twelve predictable and mallable meat sacks picked as jurors. It should be completely random and unless any of the candidates is found to have majorly conflicting interests by a panel of three judges uninvolved in the case the trial should then proceed.

If both sides of every trial were represented by Legal aid this would mean nobody would have a financial advantage. This would mean putting more money into legal aid and banning private law practice.

Why doesn't this happen...

Legal representation is a huge, profitable industry. And frankly, those in charge (politicians, bosses, media) are the best at using it to thier advantage.
Profit always comes before equality under capitalism.

In this case, I don't think his celebrity status was much of a factor as was the issue of his accusers being bold-faced liars.


I agree. While I have a very strong suspicion that MJ has molested boys, I don't believe that this particular child was abused...at least not in the manner portrayed. But, did MJ's financial resources allow his defense team to dig up the dirt on these people? If we did have a legal defense department of the government and your attorney was a matter of a random drawing, wouldn't the quality of our legal professionals decline as the brighter and more ambitious would be drawn to more lucrative professions?

Plus the courts rarely allow funds for investigators, DNA testing, expert witnesses or comprehensive psyhciatric testing to the defense.

Looking back at the Jackson, Bronson, and OJ trials and their "Not Guilty" verdicts, are celebs viewed differently in the courtroom?

When was Chuck Bronson on trial? Did they put his corpse on the stand?

This ain't over.

No dice!

When was Chuck Bronson on trial? Did they put his corpse on the stand?

This ain't over.

No dice!

Oops....Robert Blake is who I meant. I haven't lost my mind...it's around here somewhere.