The "process" is over when the defendant is found guilty(until the appeal). Punishment is supposed to be pre-prescribed and based upon nothing but the crime. No "representation" needed.
You also need a lawyer to make sure your rights are not trampled on, like the car thief's were.
LOL!! He had counsel, was found guilty, mother refused to pay, kid lost unpaid counsel for restitution hearing, which is a civil matter, no matter how screwed up courts have made civil v.s. criminal law.
Also, if the prosecution is going to have a lawyer representing the state, then the defendent is allowed a lawyer to represent him, especially involving criminal matters.
The prosecution is the "lawyer" representing the State. The perp represents himslef/herself in sentencing - only the crime matters, which has pre-prescribed penalties. No "representation" needed in civil restitution hearings.
Civil trials involve loss.
Yes, they do.
The restitution is part of the punishment in the criminal matter, and a condition of probation.
Yes, a screwed up court system has intertwined civil and criminal law. Makes no difference to me - its not Constitutional, nor does it follow common law.
If I remember correctly, the people who had their cars stolen can still take him to court for their losses, repair bills, lost wages, etc, etc, even though he was ordered to pay restitution.
Only a fool sues a convict without money. The injured parties(the person who was stolen from) and not the STATE, should direct prosecution. If the person wishes to get civil restitution in leu of prison time, that should be their right. The courts, by instituting restitution in leu of jail time, have screwed up the distinctions between criminal and civil law. I will not entertain screwed up 20th century legal gobblygook.