US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1710

On March 09 2015 08:31 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:
That's probably true about rich people, but i gotta say, when i got arrested, my public defender went above and beyond for me and did some amazing work for me. He was still somewhat young so i guess he just hadn't become disillusioned yet.

On March 09 2015 08:31 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:
That's probably true about rich people, but i gotta say, when i got arrested, my public defender went above and beyond for me and did some amazing work for me. He was still somewhat young so i guess he just hadn't become disillusioned yet.

On March 09 2015 09:13 Simberto wrote:


It doesn't have to be his enthusiasm, it could also be his competency. That does not mean the public defender is incompetent, but you could get someone better with more money.

If that were not the case, i can not explain why expensive lawyers exist. If they are exactly as good as a public defender, why does anyone hire them and pay them hundreds of dollars an hour when they could get the same quality of lawyering for free/a lot cheaper? However, they do exist, and people keep paying them, so either they are really good at marketing or their actually is a quality difference in lawyers, and more money can buy you a better one, which increases your chances of not being guilty with the same evidence.

On March 09 2015 12:26 coverpunch wrote:

You hire a private attorney for someone with a smaller caseload. Public defenders are so overloaded that they triage their cases, trying to allocate the most attention on the cases that have the best chance. But the public defender can only work so hard before moving on to other cases on their plate. Private defenders have as much time and resources as you have the ability and willingness to pay them.

You also have more choice in picking a private attorney since you can talk to some and reject the ones you don't like. You don't have so many chances to reject your public defender and pick another one.

On March 09 2015 12:29 GreenHorizons wrote:



Combine that with corrupt policing (like we have seen in Ferguson and elsewhere) and you have a recipe for disaster.

On March 09 2015 12:26 coverpunch wrote:

You hire a private attorney for someone with a smaller caseload. Public defenders are so overloaded that they triage their cases, trying to allocate the most attention on the cases that have the best chance. But the public defender can only work so hard before moving on to other cases on their plate. Private defenders have as much time and resources as you have the ability and willingness to pay them.

You also have more choice in picking a private attorney since you can talk to some and reject the ones you don't like. You don't have so many chances to reject your public defender and pick another one.

On March 09 2015 19:23 Simberto wrote:


Which in the end still leaves you with "If you have money, you can get a better attorney". The exact reasons as to why that attorney can better defend you are not really that relevant.

On March 09 2015 21:28 always_winter wrote:
If you have money you can absolutely get a better attorney. You could also be driving a Lamborghini instead of a Prius. Legal representation isn't exempt from the rules of capitalism.

On March 09 2015 22:12 Simberto wrote:
If the lawyer spends more time on your case, that is obviously going to be beneficial. I find it baffling that you debate this point.

Can you explain to me why someone would pay a lawyer 200$/hour if he would not expect better results than from a public defender? Does the 200$ lawyer simply have better marketing, but his results are exactly the same? I find it hard to believe that.

It is utterly irrelevant why exactly the more expensive lawyer will produce a better result. Maybe he can spend more time on this specific case. Maybe he has more experience with this specific type of cases. Maybe he knows which private investigators will get you additional proofs that you need. The main point is that generally speaking, people expect better results from a more expensive lawyer.

We know for a fact that people are willing to pay shitloads of money for a lawyer with a good reputation. Those people who pay that money expect better results from that lawyer than from a cheaper one. So unless we assume that this is all just one big giant marketing scam by big law firms who manage to fool everyone, it is hard to argue against the idea that in the exact same case, the defendant has a higher chance of being found not guilty if he can afford to spend more money on the trial.

On March 09 2015 17:10 coverpunch wrote:

Actually I don't think they're connected. Corrupt policing is its own toxic issue, since it undermines the rule of law and destroys credibility in the government at all levels.

The court system certainly has its own problems, but fixing them wouldn't make life any better for the residents of a place like Ferguson since it has only an oversight function of police activities and is not dedicated to protecting the citizens from bad police work. The DOJ was actively looking for reasons to prosecute cops (especially the one who killed Michael Brown) and the best they could do was getting the department to let three employees go for being dumb enough to use their official work e-mail to send racist jokes.

The general problem of public defender ineffectiveness vis-à-vis private
counsel is a problem that should concern us all. Our data show that private defense
lawyers achieve better sentence outcomes than public defenders, and that the
difference is statistically significant, both in causation and magnitude. On average,
public defender clients suffer in excess of three years more incarceration than
private defense clients, even controlling for the seriousness of the charges.

A video of a racist chant by men alleged to be fraternity brothers at the University of Oklahoma has brought widespread condemnation and the fraternity’s suspension.

The 10-second video features men said to be members of the fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE). Though the words are not all intelligible, the chant appears to be: “There will never be a n—– SAE/There will never be a n—– SAE/You can hang ‘em from a tree, but it will never start with me/There will never be a n—– SAE.”



Early Monday, the fraternity’s national organization said the University of Oklahoma’s chapter would be closed and its members suspended.

“Sigma Alpha Epsilon’s national headquarters has closed its Oklahoma Kappa chapter at the University of Oklahoma following the discovery of an inappropriate video,” read a statement posted to the fraternity’s Web site. “In addition, all of the members have been suspended, and those members who are responsible for the incident may have their membership privileges revoked permanently. We apologize for the unacceptable and racist behavior of the individuals in the video, and we are disgusted that any member would act in such a way. Furthermore, we are embarrassed by this video and offer our empathy not only to anyone outside the organization who is offended but also to our brothers who come from a wide range of backgrounds, cultures and ethnicities.”

Singed by their defeat in the battle over Homeland Security funding, Republicans aren’t about to renew their fight against President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration anytime soon.

When the GOP-controlled Senate bent to Democratic demands to fund the Department of Homeland Security, effectively undercutting conservatives who were willing to allow the agency to shut down until Obama backed down, there was talk of Senate GOP leaders returning to the immigration issue to find new ways to thwart Obama’s orders.

But few within the GOP expect any kind of immigration debate in the Senate in the foreseeable future. The issue has been relegated to the back burner as Republicans instead focus on the budget, trade deals and, possibly, tax reform.

“At this point, we have a lot of other issues to do,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who authored stand-alone legislation to block Obama’s immigration directives. “I’m very happy the Department of Homeland Security is funded, and I think the issue of the president’s overreach with his executive order of last November is probably going to end up being decided by the courts. And that’s not a bad option.”

Senate Republican leadership aides also indicated that the chamber is not likely to return to the Collins legislation in the next several weeks — a work period that will be dominated by anti-trafficking legislation, nominations, a fiscal 2016 budget and perhaps an Iran bill.

In the House, committees are humming along on some immigration bills, but leadership has shown no indication when — or if — they will come to the floor.

The inaction on immigration comes as the GOP is trying to improve its standing among Latinos in the 2016 presidential election. An “autopsy” of the party’s problems after the 2012 election warned that Republicans “must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our Party’s appeal will continue to shrink.”

Reform advocates were buoyed when the Senate overwhelmingly passed a sweeping bipartisan bill in June 2013. But the measure stalled in the House. And immigration, until at least after the next election, is more likely to be fodder for the campaign trail than congressional action.