# anti-lawyer idiots **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 15, 2009, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230 "2009-04-15T22:34:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/181 "2009-04-20T15:26:23Z")
> [@Piker](#): > > (Makes sure that this is the pit) > > Hey, **Whack-a-mole**. Just taking some time off from being a first year attorney, perusing the SDMB, and stumbled upon this thread. > > As someone who has represented asylum applicants pro bono, was active in community groups against the death penalty, volunteered at local charter schools, and worked in campaigns to increase the minimum wage . . . as well as represented criminal defendants whose innocence was not so clear-cut, drafted contracts on behalf of corporations to protect their shareholders from unnecessary risk, and worked with employment-side lobbying groups to study and reform workplace laws, I just wanted to say: > > Fuck off. Reading your drivel is like opening up a John Bircher tract that was rejected because its was too conspiratorial. Please go home and let the grown-ups talk this one out. > > -Piker Grown-ups talk this one out? Are you suggesting that this post of yours is “grown-up” talk? Have you addressed so much as a single point I have brought up and shown it to be wrong/misguided? Anything approaching two adults debating? Nope? Here, I’ll help you out: Hypocrisy Glad you are a nice-guy attorney. I am talking about your chosen profession however. Believe it or not they are distinct from each other. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/182 "2009-04-20T15:45:48Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I don’t understand. Are you implying that we should force lawyers to work for free? > > Or maybe have some sort of public office that acts as a defender for people who cannot afford an attorney and require the court to provide one? I am not saying lawyers should work for free. I am saying that our Constitution guarantees us the right to “due process”. If to you that means simply someone to dot the “i’s” and cross the “t’s” then we have a fundamental disagreement. Lawyers sleeping through a trial (as I cited above) does not constitute “due process” in my book. That the legal system thinks it somehow does is why I (among other reasons) criticize it. I do not think that our constitutional rights are premised on “if you’re rich enough to pay for it then you can access that right, otherwise fuck off”. YMMV ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/183 "2009-04-20T15:52:03Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > So, if you are frantically typing a line-by-line quotefest post or seventeen to show me what an asshole I am and how wrong I am, feel free, but be aware that I have pretty much written you off as a valuable contributor to society, and thus you have been reduced to nothing more than a mental punching bag for me to throw my asshole posts at. But don’t flatter yourself that I actually care. Sure…why let something like “facts” get in the way of a good rant. If you are an attorney and this is how you approach your job then you truly must suck at it. If an opposing attorney ever has the temerity to introduce facts into your rants then you are well and truly fucked. I’d be fine with that except you’ll take your client down the shitter with you and they probably deserve better. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/184 "2009-04-20T16:02:36Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I pulled my “distorted” facts from a CNN/Fortune magazine article. And maybe one day you’ll pull out the difference between having a number to point to, and having an actual argument. The fact that high-end lawyers cost a lot does not prove anything. So do high-end doctors, high-end programmers, and indeed anyone who does something that is really rather difficult indeed. If this was your point, then consider it splendidly made; however, it seemed to me that you were reaching rather further up your butt. It was rather akin to saying, “food is really expensive! Why, this beluga caviar costs thousands of dollars per kilogram!” I submit that even you should be able to spot the essential flaw in this argument. The legal system, just like any other human endeavour, is in parts broken horribly, in parts shocking, but also in parts magnificent, and is a huge contributor to our current almost unimaginably comfortable mode of existence. But because you went to a course once and found out how unsustainable capital punishment is (and hey, I agree), we’re all expected to listen attentively as you bloviate on and on and on as if you were the first person to notice that sometimes bad things happen in courts. If all you want to prove is that shit things happen in the legal profession, fine. But you’ve got a lot more work to do before you can prove it’s even remotely unusual in this regard, or that we should colour our prior opinions of lawyers because of it. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/185 "2009-04-20T16:21:46Z")
> [@Dead\_Badger](#): > > And maybe one day you’ll pull out the difference between having a number to point to, and having an actual argument. The fact that high-end lawyers cost a lot does not prove anything. So do high-end doctors, high-end programmers, and indeed anyone who does something that is really rather difficult indeed. If this was your point, then consider it splendidly made; however, it seemed to me that you were reaching rather further up your butt. It was rather akin to saying, “food is really expensive! Why, this beluga caviar costs thousands of dollars per kilogram!” > > I submit that even you should be able to spot the essential flaw in this argument. What flaw? The cite also noted that 90% of people in family court have to represent themselves. Are you suggesting that if they cannot afford OJ’s dream team of lawyers they all simply choose to go it alone? Or how about prosecutors having access to 97% of to the PD’s 3%? You can nitpick the numbers down somewhat but a substantial disparity remains. So far the best anyone has come up with rebutting these arguments is that maybe they are not _quite_ as bad as suggested. Nothing approaching that the perceived problem does not exist at all. Again, you have provided nothing in the way of cites to show the falsity of my cites. You have used some reasoning which may mitigate my points a bit but are a LONG shot from refuting them. It is here where the “essential flaw” in your argument lies. > [@](#): > > The legal system, just like any other human endeavour, is in parts broken horribly, in parts shocking, but also in parts magnificent, and is a huge contributor to our current almost unimaginably comfortable mode of existence. But because you went to a course once and found out how unsustainable capital punishment is (and hey, I agree), we’re all expected to listen attentively as you bloviate on and on and on as if you were the first person to notice that sometimes bad things happen in courts. So if slavery allowed us to have an unimaginably comfortable mode of existence we should be ok with that? We should ignore the price that this existence costs? You are ok that the price for this comfortable existence comes at the cost of innocent people being on death row (just for starters, the rabbit hole goes waaay deeper)? You think it is wrong for me to point out these glaring flaws and suggest that the status quo sucks? That I should embrace and love the profession perpetuating that status quo? That my constitutional rights have a monetary price tag? Justice for the rich, screw the rest? ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/186 "2009-04-20T18:02:53Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > Gratz! Just so we’re on the same page, it’s **you**. No **you!** ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/187 "2009-04-20T19:26:18Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > Ok, here’s the thing. I’m not trying to convince you. I’m just pointing out that you are a moron, fitting in the taxonomy I provided. Your major mistake is in assuming that I, someone who is not a fuckwit, care that you believe me or not. I’m probably never going to convince some redneck Nascar-loving homo-hater that being gay is a valid life choice, but that won’t stop me from pointing out they they have a terminal case of (small) 2 minute penis. > > Likewise, my job is not to convince you of the truth so we can have rainbows shoot out our eyeball as we embrace and demonstrate at the end of the movie that we can overcome our differences and grow to love one another (in a manly way) as “Ebony and Ivory” plays in the background to a montage of us having a picnic and hugging kittens and puppies and slow dancing to “Lady in Red”. > > Nope, you and your idiot friends and the other idiots that think the same thing are just that: idiots. Don’t flatter yourself that I actually give a shit what you think, just like I don’t tiptoe around my dislike of brother-sister incest when I drive though parts of Tennessee. It’s pretty much a given that a substantial portion of humanity is just going to be fucking ignorant, and I’m fine with that, but once in a while I just need to point out how ignorant you are. That doesn’t mean I’m going to get bogged down in some point-by-point “debate” with a bunch of mental deficients to prove my point. I, being the judge and jury (pun intended) have already found you and your kind guilty on all counts and thus feel that you and your inanity are acceptable targets for my wrath. > > So, if you are frantically typing a line-by-line quotefest post or seventeen to show me what an asshole I am and how wrong I am, feel free, but be aware that I have pretty much written you off as a valuable contributor to society, and thus you have been reduced to nothing more than a mental punching bag for me to throw my asshole posts at. But don’t flatter yourself that I actually care. Don’t worry, I’ve already written you off as a self-righteous, whiny bitch of a lawyer who is so full of himself that you’re simply incapable of understanding why most people view lawyers in a negative light. But go ahead and continue your ignorant ranting, your behavior and attitude is a great example of why normal people despise you. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/188 "2009-04-20T20:12:26Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > What flaw? Well, I’ve explained in detail, but the main one is that you’re a pillock. > [@](#): > > The cite also noted that 90% of people in family court have to represent themselves. Uh uh uh - 90% of people _do_; that encompasses both by choice and necessity. Perhaps family law courts are set up specifically to cater to people representing themselves (I know that this is frequently the case in the UK - I will let you educate yourself on your own jurisdiction). Nearer 100% of people represent themselves in small claims court, I’ll warrant; is that a shocking statistic? Impossible to tell without context. And thus we return to the horrible paucity of your vaunted “facts”, and the necessity of constructing an actual argument rather than just coming up with bald figures. Oh, but deary me, here we go again: > [@](#): > > Or how about prosecutors having access to 97% of to the PD’s 3%? You can nitpick the numbers down somewhat but a substantial disparity remains. Yeah, if by “nitpicking” you mean "point out that a large amount of that 97% is in fact available to both sides. Piffling points, I’m sure, and yet somehow compelling to those not possessed of your staggering intellect. > [@](#): > > So if slavery allowed us to have an unimaginably comfortable mode of existence we should be ok with that? I’m just going to let this comparison of modern law with slavery stand. Like good wine, an analogy this profoundly stupid needs to breathe. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/189 "2009-04-20T20:18:27Z")
Whack-a-mole, your cites are cherry-picking their numbers to add sensation, and your uncritical acceptance of the comparisons they make is a definite flaw in your argument; your misinterpretation of these numbers compounds the error: “a partner in a law firm charges $261 an hour on average” – So? A partner in a large law firm has reached the top of his profession, and charges top dollar; $260 is so low for this select minority that the smaller partnerships that make up the “below average” must be charging a pittance. Add to this the fact that most clients are served by associates, small firms, and “storefront” lawyers, and the figure you cite becomes simply irrelevant. It’s like citing the average salary of CEOs as an argument that middle managers make too much money. “The cite also noted that 90% of people in family court have to represent themselves.” – No, it didn’t. It says UP TO 90% in SOME family courts DO represent themselves. It doesn’t say what the average is, doesn’t say what courts have such rates, doesn’t say what kind of cases they hear, and it doesn’t investigate WHY these people are representing themselves. Worst of all, they don’t tell us how they arrived at this “90% of people” number – does it include every person named in a suit? If I get divorced amicably, prepare my own paperwork, and my wife does likewise, are my wife, me, and my two children all going to be counted as part of that 90%? Lots of people don’t need lawyers, or don’t trust them, or think they don’t need one. Lots of family court cases are just rubber-stamping settlements, hearing simple disputes between unrepresented parties, etc. “A 1999 U.S. Justice Department study of the country’s 100 most populous counties found that 97 percent of their law enforcement budgets went toward police, courts, and prosecutors, with the remaining 3 percent going to public defenders.” – Again, so? Why should the PD’s office be getting more? The vast majority of such funds are not spent on activities which directly oppose the defense. For example, the San Francisco Police Department has a budget around $450 million, more than half of which is spent on patrolling; the Sheriff’s Department, which has NO role in arrests or prosecutions in SF, has a budget around $150 million; and the trial courts collectively have a budget of $32 million. Contrary to what appears to be your perception, these forces are NOT arrayed against the defense – most police funds are spent on patrolling, an activity that has to be carried out whether or not it results in arrests; a full 10% gets spent at the airport; nearly $100 million comes from special funds that are earmarked for specific projects; and both the prosecution and the defense get everything that comes out of the police department – if there weren’t any police, there wouldn’t be any cases. The Sheriff and the courts are neutral in this process. The DA’s office has a budget of $31 million, and the Public Defender has a budget of $23 million; bear in mind that the DA’s office has to handle ALL cases that come their way, whereas the Public Defender’s office only handles clients who qualify for their assistance. Both of these offices have their own investigators and other support staff. I think this demonstrates that the comparable spending is quite fairly distributed. San Francisco is a bit of a special case, as it’s both a city and a county, but the 3% they spend on the PD’s office is in line with the cite. By comparison, Imperial County, California, has a $24 million budget for “Detention and Correction,” which includes $2 million spent by the PD’s office, and $4 million spent by the DA. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/190 "2009-04-20T20:47:30Z")
> [@Dead\_Badger](#): > > Yeah, if by “nitpicking” you mean "point out that a large amount of that 97% is in fact available to both sides. Piffling points, I’m sure, and yet somehow compelling to those not possessed of your staggering intellect. More facts than the zero you have provided. Further, you are hanging your hat on nitpicking some few numbers down that clearly point to real issues in the system. Care to tackle sleeping attorneys or pushing for the death penalty of innocent people? > [@](#): > > I’m just going to let this comparison of modern law with slavery stand. Like good wine, an analogy this profoundly stupid needs to breathe. I had a sneaking suspicion you’d be too dim to understand the point of the analogy. You said, _“The legal system, just like any other human endeavour, is in parts broken horribly, in parts shocking, but also in parts magnificent, and is a huge contributor to our current almost unimaginably comfortable mode of existence.”_ I pointed out that slavery could fit that model as well. Clearly that is not an argument to support being ok with the status quo. The horribly broken and shocking parts need addressing. The legal profession in the US has not and is not seriously addressing those issues. Indeed, they made it the way it is. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/191 "2009-04-20T21:04:49Z")
**Whack-A-Mole** , considering the different functions and responsibilities of DAs and PDs, what do you think would represent true fairness in terms of budgeting? 50-50? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/192 "2009-04-20T21:06:50Z")
> [@Nametag](#): > > Whack-a-mole, your cites are cherry-picking their numbers to add sensation, and your uncritical acceptance of the comparisons they make is a definite flaw in your argument; your misinterpretation of these numbers compounds the error: First off they are at the least indicators of a legitimate problem unless you are implying that Fortune/CNN and the others are outright lying and distorting the facts for some unstated purpose. But fine…want more? (bolding is theirs) > [@](#): > > NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE – A new report on prosecution and indigent defense funding in Tennessee has uncovered disturbing evidence of a significant and unfair imbalance of financial and other resources between the prosecution and indigent defense functions. > > \ > > The report finds that in fiscal year 2004-2005 (the most recent year for which extensive funding information is available), **the defense function in indigent cases received only $56.4 million – less than half of the $130 million to $139 million the prosecution received.** This disparity affects cases ranging from misdemeanors to death penalty cases. > > **Furthermore, when taking into account “in-kind” services provided to the prosecution function from various federal, county, and municipal law enforcement agencies and experts, prosecutors receive more than four times as many resources than are provided to indigent defense counsel.** > > SOURCE: [http://tennesseejusticeproject.org/press/tn-indigent-defense-attorneys-receive-less-than-half-the-dollars-allocated-to-the-prosecution/](http://tennesseejusticeproject.org/press/tn-indigent-defense-attorneys-receive-less-than-half-the-dollars-allocated-to-the-prosecution/) Or… > [@](#): > > In the battle for adequate funding, indigent defense faces tough competition for resources, especially in comparison to prosecutors. Even conceding that prosecutors consider some cases that are never charged and that some cases are represented by retained counsel, financial support of indigent defense typically lags well behind that provided for prosecutors. The ABA has urged “parity between defense counsel and the prosecution with respect to resources,”[70] but this goal is not being achieved. The inequities between prosecution and defense can take several forms, including disparity in the amount of funds, sources of funding, in-kind resources, staffing, and salaries. > > \ > > The overall disparity in funding frequently means that there are very real inequities between prosecution and defense programs related to staffing levels and compensation. For example, in Cumberland County, New Jersey, the prosecutor’s office has twice the number of attorney positions and over seven times the number of investigators handling criminal cases as the public defender’s office, even though public defenders handle approximately 90% of the county’s criminal cases.[75] In Harris County, Texas, the budget for the District Attorney’s Office is over twice the amount available for indigent defense and includes 30 investigator positions compared with no investigators for the contract defenders.[76] In Saratoga County, New York, the District Attorney’s Office has five more full-time and two more part-time attorney positions than the Public Defender’s Office, partly due to state grant funding for cases such as domestic violence, sex crimes, car theft, and DWI cases.[77] > > In New Orleans, prosecutors outnumber public defenders nearly three to one (90 to 32). The former Interim Chief Public Defender has stated that the disparity is likely to grow as federal grant funding of $1.7 million of federal funds awarded in the wake of Katrina is due to expire in 2009, leading to a lay-off of one-third of the program’s attorneys.[78] The disparity is not surprising considering that the City of New Orleans provided nearly $5 million in funding to the District Attorney’s Office in 2008 but nothing to the Public Defender’s Office, although the City Council has agreed to consider a proposal to provide public defender funding in the future.[79] > > \ > > Similarly, compensation of assigned counsel is often far from adequate. Attorneys in private practice across the country routinely bill between $178 and $265 per hour for their work, a sum that is necessary in part to cover overhead expenses.[88] When the federal government retains private attorneys to provide representation in civil matters, the lawyers are compensated at similar rates.[89] In contrast, when an indigent person is accused of a non-capital felony offense and faces a loss of liberty, the lawyer assigned to defend that person is rarely paid over $90 an hour, and more often, the compensation is between $50 and $65 an hour.[90] In several states, including Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee, attorneys receive as little as $40 an hour for out-of-court work in such cases.[91] In Oregon, attorneys receive $40 an hour in non-capital felony cases even for trials and other work performed in court.[92] With few exceptions, assigned counsel are not given an additional payment to cover overhead expenses.[93] Moreover, states frequently limit the amount assigned counsel can be paid for any single case by setting maximum compensation levels. In order to exceed the maximum compensation level, an attorney must seek approval from the court—approval that, in fact, may be denied even after the work has been performed. In Mississippi, although attorneys are compensated for overhead expenses, the statutory limit is $1000 for work performed in a non-capital felony case.[94] This cap most likely has a chilling effect on the right to counsel by providing a disincentive for attorneys to perform work beyond the $1000 level, resulting in a conflict of interest between the attorney and client.[95] > > SOURCE: [http://tcpjusticedenied.org/index.php?option=com\_content&view=article&id=70&Itemid=68](http://tcpjusticedenied.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70&Itemid=68) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/193 "2009-04-20T21:11:29Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > **Whack-A-Mole** , considering the different functions and responsibilities of DAs and PDs, what do you think would represent true fairness in terms of budgeting? 50-50? See my post just above this one. Lots of detail there and more in the links I provided. I’d argue PD’s should have case loads on par with prosecutors and get paid the same as prosecutors as well as covering other expenses they incur (same as the prosecutors). If they need to hire more PDs then so be it. The defense should also have access to the same amount of money the prosecutors do to hire experts to testify on their behalf or pay for their own investigation and such. Essentially parity with the prosecutors (which of course will vary across the country so whatever that means in each locale). ETA: Note that the ABA wants the same thing which is nice to see. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/194 "2009-04-20T23:57:54Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I have my mind made up because I did not accept you hand waving away the 97% figure? You made a point that the disparity is likely lower. I agreed. I also asked you to show that the disparity is largely addressed by that or other means and you didn’t (nor did **DrDeth** ). All I have ever read on the subject notes the disparity and notes it is an alarmingly large disparity at that. I do not know what the disparity is. However, note that Taypayer-funded lab work is available to both sides and has cleared many an accused. No doubt there is a disparity. OTOH, there is nothing to stop you from being filthy rich and outspending the Prosecution. So, it’s not a "rights’ issue. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/195 "2009-04-21T03:08:36Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I do not know what the disparity is. However, note that Taypayer-funded lab work is available to both sides and has cleared many an accused. No doubt there is a disparity. OTOH, there is nothing to stop you from being filthy rich and outspending the Prosecution. So, it’s not a "rights’ issue. Yes, it is a rights issue that is not obviated by either of your rejoinders here. Lab work is not equally available, as I understand it. PDs do not have access (any at all) to databases with fingerprints and DNA. You can get a crappy match on fingerprints, say on six or eight points and no opportunity to run the same partial print for hundreds of other lousy matches. Normally you need about 15 points to constitute a match that is conclusive. Come up with 6 points and some nutty judge may admit it, but you can bet they wouldn’t if the PDs got to use the database to come up with all the other crappy matches. There are a whole bunch of interesting arguments on why fingerprint evidence isn’t scientific, but it’s a bit beyond the scope of this thread. Second, a defendant has a “right” to effective assistance of counsel, see Gideon v. Wrainright where Henry Fonda and Jose Ferrer cleaned the clock of the State of Florida. Counsel must be effective, and counsel that cannot spend time on the case, hire experts and investigators, etc. ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/196 "2009-04-21T03:43:48Z")
Brilliant. Let me give you a typical caseload for a P.D. #1: Guy robbed convenience store, in daylight, on camera, without mask, and dropped wallet on floor as he left, and was arrested with money in a bag from the convenience store, 5 blocks from the crime scene. #2: Accused caught driving with a BAC of .41. After being released from hospital, he is booked. #3-#10: prostitutes caught on tape soliciting. #11: Teen caught shoplifting. Is on camera, and was detained by store security as soon as he exited the store. #12-#19: drunken and/or drug related assault. #20: Actually interesting case where police may have wrong suspect. The real world is not CSI or NCIS or whatever other acronym show you are watching in between reading tax protest sites and responding to every sentence posted on the dope. Most of these cases get pled, because they are pretty fucking obvious and there is no room for lawyering around. 80% of the job of a P.D. is just to negotiate good plea bargains. And regardless of your inane ideas about how every case features forensic evidence and is a duel of wits between counsel in the courtroom, plea bargains _are_ constitutional, and they are highly efficient. Of course, on the other hand, the prosecution has the burden of proving every element of the case. They are the ones that have to do lab work and watch tapes and pay for blood spatter experts (although as mentioned by the other people in this thread that aren’t fuckwits, this is part of your 97% and is available to both sides). So your 50-50 balance of fundage is just stupid. Once again, you have demonstrated your ignorance by focusing on a completely irrelevant issue, based on some combination of your TV fantasies of being on CSI and your sexual longings for Nancy Grace. This is my point, and you are helping prove it: You have no idea what you are talking about and your ability to google public interest groups, bring up incredibly rare celeb cases, and refuse to even understand other people’s posts (while simultaneously quoting them and repeating yourself) are just more evidence that you don’t actually have a clue. Oh, and I forgot intellectually dishonest (though admittedly, that could just be the dumb). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/197 "2009-04-21T04:53:33Z")
I’ll agree that is in fact a typical PD case, at least in my understanding. But it isn’t all of the cases. Of course there is always a motion to get more budget from the court. Or at least so I hear. But then there are also all the Texas death penalty cases we hear about the lawyers falling asleep or not preparing at all. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/198 "2009-04-21T08:20:59Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I pointed out that slavery could fit that model as well. So, slavery was magnificent in your view? An indispensable part of civilised life? Hmm. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/199 "2009-04-21T12:07:30Z")
> [@Dead\_Badger](#): > > So, slavery was magnificent in your view? An indispensable part of civilised life? > > Hmm. Not to me but I am willing to bet many slave owners saw it that way. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2009, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230/200 "2009-04-21T12:39:25Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > Brilliant. Let me give you a typical caseload for a P.D. > > #1: Guy robbed convenience store, in daylight, on camera, without mask, and dropped wallet on floor as he left, and was arrested with money in a bag from the convenience store, 5 blocks from the crime scene. > > #2: Accused caught driving with a BAC of .41. After being released from hospital, he is booked. > > #3-#10: prostitutes caught on tape soliciting. > > #11: Teen caught shoplifting. Is on camera, and was detained by store security as soon as he exited the store. > > #12-#19: drunken and/or drug related assault. > > #20: Actually interesting case where police may have wrong suspect. Isn’t that the same case load for the prosecution? Seems to me for any given case before the courts there is a prosecutor and a defense attorney. Whether they plead or go to trial or what you need a person on each side doing their job. As cited in post #192 there is a distinct disparity here as noted by a study explicitly done looking at this very issue. Once again the you manage to ignore the very evidence given in lieu of your bullshit rant. > [@](#): > > The real world is not CSI or NCIS or whatever other acronym show you are watching in between reading tax protest sites and responding to every sentence posted on the dope. Most of these cases get pled, because they are pretty fucking obvious and there is no room for lawyering around. 80% of the job of a P.D. is just to negotiate good plea bargains. And regardless of your inane ideas about how every case features forensic evidence and is a duel of wits between counsel in the courtroom, plea bargains _are_ constitutional, and they are highly efficient. When every sentence is pure drivel it is fun responding to it. Most people know when they are in a hole to stop digging but you keep at it and I enjoy watching you flail about helplessly. And yeah, plea bargains are constitutional but a good case can be made that they shouldn’t be. There have been numerous things in our history that were constitutional for awhile but probably never should have been. There are very real issues surrounding the plea bargain system and once again your hand waving it all away merely displays your ignorance or simple indifference. > [@](#): > > Of course, on the other hand, the prosecution has the burden of proving every element of the case. They are the ones that have to do lab work and watch tapes and pay for blood spatter experts (although as mentioned by the other people in this thread that aren’t fuckwits, this is part of your 97% and is available to both sides). Oddly the defense attorneys do not see this as parity. Nor do my cites above consider this parity. > [@](#): > > So your 50-50 balance of fundage is just stupid. Once again, you have demonstrated your ignorance by focusing on a completely irrelevant issue, based on some combination of your TV fantasies of being on CSI and your sexual longings for Nancy Grace. This is my point, and you are helping prove it: You have no idea what you are talking about and your ability to google public interest groups, bring up incredibly rare celeb cases, and refuse to even understand other people’s posts (while simultaneously quoting them and repeating yourself) are just more evidence that you don’t actually have a clue. > > Oh, and I forgot intellectually dishonest (though admittedly, that could just be the dumb). This is classic. How’s this for intellectually dishonest? Completely avoid two cites in post #192 discussing this, one of which is a study explicitly done on this issue and finds that problem or the other piece which itself is extensively cited. Better still, missed the part that the American Bar Association supports this? Here, I’ll help you (how you can be an attorney and lack even the most basic ability to do the simplest research is beyond me): > [@](#): > > \*\*Ten Principles Of a Public Defense Delivery System > \*\* > > ABA Standing Committee On Legal Aid And Indigent Defendants > > Approved by American Bar Association House of Delegates, February 2002. The American Bar Association recommends that jurisdictions use these Principles to assess promptly the needs of public defense delivery systems and clearly communicate those needs to policy makers. > There is parity between defense counsel and the prosecution with respect to resources and defense counsel is included as an equal partner in the justice system. There should be parity of workload, salaries and other resources (such as benefits, technology, facilities, legal research, support staff, paralegals, investigators, and access to forensic services and experts) between prosecution and public defense.23 Assigned counsel should be paid a reasonable fee in addition to actual overhead and expenses.24 Contracts with private attorneys for public defense services should never be let primarily on the basis of cost; they should specify performance requirements and the anticipated workload, provide an overflow or funding mechanism for excess, unusual, or complex cases,25 and separately fund expert, investigative, and other litigation support services.26 No part of the justice system should be expanded or the workload increased without consideration of the impact that expansion will have on the balance and on the other components of the justice system. Public defense should participate as an equal partner in improving the justice system.27 This principle assumes that the prosecutor is adequately funded and supported in all respects, so that securing parity will mean that defense counsel is able to provide quality legal representation. > > SOURCE: [http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/downloads/sclaid/indigentdefense/tenprinciplesbooklet.pdf](http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/downloads/sclaid/indigentdefense/tenprinciplesbooklet.pdf) (PDF) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-lawyer-idiots/493230.md?page=11)