Legal Representation Inequality

Thinking of the parallels with public defense.Basically, if you're poor, you will get a public defender. Someone who is overworked, underpaid and probably won't give your case the appropriate time it needs to develop a valid defense..Whereas if you have money, you can afford an attorney that can spend the appropriate time to create a robust defense.

It's the same justice system.The unfortunate fact is that as the prosecutor in the OP lays out, it is not State's job to make sure every single legal advantage is pressed to the fullest.Acquiring solid legal representation is a big financial barrier, but that's something we do help with as a society - there's public defenders, then there are civil programs for people up to 400% of the poverty line.

"thats what legal aid is for" - public defenders are famously underpaid and overworked in most environs. If you rely on them for your defense it will be very poor.

You can get publicly funded counsel only if you are poor enough and unable to afford own lawyer. And public defenders tend to be overworked and underfunded, so it is not like they will give you too much personal attention.

The problem here isn't the the standard of evidence, it's the unequal access to resources. Lawyers are not cheap, and for many citizens the cost of hiring a lawyer might be greater than the value of the resource in question. And that's even assuming that they win, or that they have faith in the justice system to vindicate them.

The legal systen is 'free market'? Thats why offering money to anyone except your attorney is a crime?Being a jury is a public duty, poor people get a state sponsored defence atturney, judges are employed by the state, prosecutors are employed by the state.The day legal system goes 'free market' you will have mafia rulling the streets.

Or just make the entire system based on a sort of "public defender" model. As it stands, a person accused of a crime and then found innocent has still been punished without even being found guilty due to enormous legal bills. It is a highly asymmetric power structure for anyone who isn't wealth: the prosecutors have massively more resources than the average person to call upon. Alternatively, when prosecuting the wealthy, that asymmetry is reversed, which might be equally problema

That wouldn't really help. Even if only publicly-funded lawyers could represent criminal defendants (which I don't think anyone actually wants), those with financial means would be able to employ an army of experts, researchers, investigators, etc. to aid in their case, in addition to the biases juries have toward those with means, and political sway the elite hold. And if you somehow prevented that inequality, you'd just drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator, and al

I think the problem is not the Law itself. The problem is that in order to protect yourself (even if you're not guilty) you have to spend ENORMOUS amount of money. From this perspective rich people have more access to the basic rights (in this case ability to defend themselves) rather than poor.

I find your comment extremely insightful, especially the second paragraph. So thanks for that.It makes me wonder if we could bring back more "trust in the system" by putting a cap on the price of litigation, or using "public prosecutors" the same way we use "public defenders".My understanding of the system is that poor folks only get "public defenders" when they are arrested and can't afford a lawyer, but apart from the government bringing cases