Massachusetts SJC Strikes Again
As a follow up to this earlier post concerning the current shortage of public defense attorneys, comes today's ruling by the Massachusetts SJC:
I believe, that under the provisions of the Miranda warning, a person being charged with a crime has the right to a publicly-provided attorney IF he or she cannot afford one on their own. Now how many of these people languishing in jail awaiting legal representation do you honestly think would tell the courts, "That's OK, your honor, I can afford legal counsel. I'll just cancel my cable TV and maybe only smoke ONE pack a day to come up with the money for it."?
The more you offer something for nothing, the more you'll have to keep on paying for it as more and more people look for the free lunch. How about we start by auditing these people to determine their true financial situation? Granted, there are some truly destitute folks out there who will need a public defender, but there needs to be some accountability to curb what I'm sure is a healthy amount of abuse inherent to this system.
Stay tuned for next week's SJC ruling where they determine that supermarkets' policies of charging consumers for products discriminate against poor people, and order that all prices on food items be cut in half across the Commonwealth.
Sound ridiculous? Can you say "minimum wage"? Same. Fucking, Concept.
And, of course, I have to add this bit.
BOSTON (AP) The state's highest court ruled Wednesday that a shortage of defense lawyers caused by low pay is violating the constitutional rights of some indigent defendants, and said criminal cases must be dismissed against those who go without a lawyer for more than 45 days.Oh, great, Joe Crackhead gets busted, and all he has to do is claim poverty and sweat it out for 45 days in the clink and he's free and clear of all charges. That's just fabulous.
The Committee for Public Counsel Services said there are more than 50 defendants in western Massachusetts who have been denied their right to consult with an attorney because the agency was unable to find private attorneys to take the cases.Again...that is just shocking that people would object to the government asking them to give away their services to people who, I would wager, for the most part, can afford cable TV, fast food, liquor and cigarettes.
The CPCS has about 110 staff lawyers not nearly enough to handle the more than 200,000 cases involving indigent defendants each year. So the agency relies heavily on private lawyers to represent poor defendants. The agency says finding these lawyers called "bar advocates" has become increasingly difficult because the pay is not enough to cover their overhead costs.
I believe, that under the provisions of the Miranda warning, a person being charged with a crime has the right to a publicly-provided attorney IF he or she cannot afford one on their own. Now how many of these people languishing in jail awaiting legal representation do you honestly think would tell the courts, "That's OK, your honor, I can afford legal counsel. I'll just cancel my cable TV and maybe only smoke ONE pack a day to come up with the money for it."?
The more you offer something for nothing, the more you'll have to keep on paying for it as more and more people look for the free lunch. How about we start by auditing these people to determine their true financial situation? Granted, there are some truly destitute folks out there who will need a public defender, but there needs to be some accountability to curb what I'm sure is a healthy amount of abuse inherent to this system.
Stay tuned for next week's SJC ruling where they determine that supermarkets' policies of charging consumers for products discriminate against poor people, and order that all prices on food items be cut in half across the Commonwealth.
Sound ridiculous? Can you say "minimum wage"? Same. Fucking, Concept.
And, of course, I have to add this bit.
"The continuation of what is now an unconstitutional state of affairs cannot be tolerated," the court said in its ruling.Any chance they were referring to Massachusetts firearms laws here?
