Replies

Nowhere does it say that the defendent has a blank check to charge the American public whatever the heck they want. I think that defense cost should be strickly limited, and obtained from any assests the defendents or their organizations have. I am not willing to pay taxes to enrich lawyers.

Nowhere does it say that the defendent has a blank check to charge the American public whatever the heck they want. I think that defense cost should be strickly limited, and obtained from any assests the defendents or their organizations have. I am not willing to pay taxes to enrich lawyers

Impersonator; Does this mean that you also believe that there should be a mandatory cap on the funds that the state should spend to investigate and prosecute a crime or even a war? Should there be a cap on the cost of food and housing and medicine. Very socialist in your thinking.

"Nowhere does it say that the defendent has a blank check to charge the American public whatever the heck they want. I think that defense cost should be strickly limited, and obtained from any assests the defendents or their organizations have. I am not willing to pay taxes to enrich lawyers."

Right on !!

You would feel differently if it were your time and effort. One of the problems with reducing payment to counsel for defending the indigent is that no one wants to do it. Or those that do, if, court-appointed, may be forced to cut corners or give less than a zealous defense.(Lawyers seem to be the only ones asked to cut their fees because those requesting the service are poor)

Now, many folks don't have a problem with a defendant receiving poor representation by a court-appointed attorney, that is, until they become that defendant.

I loathe Dershowitz. He is a self-promoter of the worst kind. But his point, which I think would not be lost on this cite that purports to uphold the virtue of America is, that everybody is entitled to a fair trial and competent representation. The rule of law and principals of civilization are served best when we are prepared to extend those rights to even the most vicious of all killers. It is why we are Americans, and everyone else is not.

Some might argue, that such rights don't extend to non-citizens. That is certainly a different argument with which I have some concern, but I certainly feel it is valid for debate.

Lawyers are a bit like Congressman, we all seem to have everyone else's, but we love our own.