Excellent opinion piece on the "collapse" of indigent defense spending, which has actually gone done even as caseloads have skyrocketed. Public defense isn't sexy, but it's better than the alternative.
'The situation in South Dakota highlights the insanity of this. South Dakota charges a defendant $92 an hour for his public defender, owed no matter the outcome of the case. If a public defender spends 10 hours proving that her client is innocent, the defendant still owes the lawyer $920, even though he committed no crime and his arrest was a mistake. Failure to pay is a crime. Someone who qualifies as indigent may be acquitted, only to be convicted of being too poor to pay for the legal services the Constitution requires the state to provide.'
The article notes that increasing spending on this service should be a no-brainer for both parties:
'For Democrats, this plan would target a major cost of poverty and inequality and, because of the correlation between wealth and race, it would tackle at least some of the racial imbalances that permeate the criminal justice system.
For Republicans, who worry about state overreach and the government’s ability to oppress its citizens, meaningful public defense ensures that the poor, too, are able to check the state when it is acting in its most powerful capacity.'
The problem with the latter point — as much as it makes sense — is that it is a philosophical one that flies in the face of two other much more loudly trumpeted GOP talking points: (1) government spending, especially on the poor, is just "taking" and is always evil, and (2) accused criminals, especially the poor, are almost certainly guilty, and should be tossed in the (privately operated) clink and the key thrown away.
In other words, this is a problem that is not going to get better any time soon.
A Mockery of Justice for the Poor
Public defenders are starved for resources as they struggle to represent impoverished clients.
I had no idea that public defenders cost money. That's completely stupid and completely undermines the very idea of public defenders.
+John Bump Well, we certainly can't ask the
business communitytaxpayers to fork over money for crooks to get lawyers that will get them off on some damn technicality in front of all those liberal judges. If they can't afford a lawyer, then they should find one of their drug-selling friends to loan them the money to pay for one, or sell one of those big screen TVs they looted last time they were rioting!(Or at least that's how the argument goes, as I understand it.)
I suspect it's more "we are gonna cut spending on EVERYTHING save for stuff that directly benefits us."
+Dave Hill Careful mate, lot of folk don't register sarcasm.