So, I’m reading a book, The New Jim Crow, and this lady is finally (though vaguely) outlining some things that she believes needs to be done to deal with the massive black over-representation in the criminal justice system and one of the things is equal funding of the Solicitors and Public Defender’s offices.
And then I was like…They aren’t? I looked at my State’s county funding and wow, they really, really aren’t. Some counties in my state fund their Solicitors 8x as much as the PD’s office. 5x the funding is actually pretty common. How is this considered constitutional or fair? I say this only looking at my home state (South Carolina, which could be the issue) and I don’t really know what other issues Solicitor offices have to deal with, but is there anything they do that justifies that.
What are you talking about?? I just gave you one. South Carolina, unless you are pointing out that the counties have Solicitor’s Office and not the actually State.
I think he’s referring to the fact that “solicitor” is generally a British term and District Attorney (or prosecutor) is the American term that you appear to be talking about.
My guess would be that every case needs a prosecutor but not every case needs a public defender since some defendants hire their own counsel, thus the need for more prosecutors and a higher budget.
That, and since the prosecutor has to investigate and prove things, and the defense only has to show that things haven’t been proved, the prosecutor is generally going to have a bigger job to do and naturally would need a bigger budget, even in a world that tries to fairly apportion resources between them.
Not that we’re in that world, but there’s a least some reason for funding the prosecutors more.
The thing about “Constitutional Rights” is that people love to assume that “this must be a right!” when in fact no such right exists.
I got into an argument on another part of the internet with a guy that claimed air travel was a Constitutional right and therefore he didn’t have to submit to TSA checks. I am sure the TSA drones love dealing with him :rolleyes:
While you are Constitutionally guaranteed defense counsel, I don’t know why you would think there would be a right to have a well-paid attorney. I have heard cost-saving proposal for public defenders that involved making all attorneys in the state do a randomized stint as public defender, much like voters in the state do a randomized stint as jury members. Not that I think this is an idea that passes the “think about it for 2 seconds test”, but I think that would be Constitutional, and then the public defender budget would be zero!
I have read that over 90% of all criminal cases are settled without ever going to trial, if this is so, then I can only imagine the real burden on both offices is vastly understated.
Government lawyers (especially at the local level) are often refered to as solicitors.
“City Solicitor” means the same thing as City Attorney or (Municipal) Corporation Counsel.
You actually have to do quite a bit of work to know which cases belong in the 90%.
To the OP, as someone who started my career as a public defender making $17,500 annually, I support your sentiment, but I don’t think it’s a constitutional violation, just bad policy. There could be a violation if the public defenders were so underfunded that they couldn’t provide an adequate defense.. That inquiry is unrelated to how much the prosecutor’s budget is. (simple analysis to a complicated question. If I was on SCOTUS, I might very well find that many public defender agencies are underfunded to a degree that does cross the line)