12-06-2014, 11:39 PM
Drew Phipps Wrote:Although I am aware that there are some lawyers that unfortunately treat their indigent clients less seriously than the paying ones, I think the extent to which the perception is applied is wildly over exaggerated. By far, most of the attorneys that I know don't "slack off" for court-appointments.
I know in Australia, which has a very similar system to the UK, being based on it, that many of the court appointed defence lawyers tend to work to make life run smoothly for the court system rather than represent their client's best interests. Getting their clients to plead guilty and not rock the boat even though their client may be fitted up and not guilty. There is no justice just a legal system which operates more like a sausage factory processing meat along the way. On the other hand I also know lawyers who went into law because they are fighters for underdogs and know the system is rigged against most people. But not all of them work as public defenders. Some do pro bono but it is limited. It is a flawed system. I think it might be fairer to take the money out of law and just have the state paying both defence and prosecution. Lawyers allocated randomly from a pool of available lawyers as they become available.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.