WP: Right to an Attorney Comes at a Price

[kskiska]

Minnesota Law Requiring Fees for Public Defenders Is Challeng

Monday, October 20, 2003; Page A01

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Anyone who has ever watched a cop catch a bad guy on television likely has this constitutional right committed to memory: If you can't afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.

But a new Minnesota law that requires poor people to pay as much as $200 for this privilege is under attack by public defenders and some judges, who contend that it undermines the 40-year-old legal tenet established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Gideon v. Wainwright.

Minnesota is one of a growing number of states facing enormous budget deficits that are beginning to charge indigents for their constitutional right to legal representation. States including Arkansas, Ohio and New Jersey charge the poor $10 to $200 for lawyers -- fees that proponents argue are nominal and allow everyone to share the burden. Maryland charges adults $50 and juveniles $25; the District and Virginia do not charge.

But opponents say even the smallest of fees can be a burden for the poor.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2003Oct19.html

[Silverhair]

1. This stinks.

The Supreme Court in Gideon made it clear that there was to be no fee and that the right start with the at the arraignment.

[bluestateguy]

2. There's one way to solve this problem

States have budget crunches. I can sympathize with that. So, stop putting so many people in jail for God's sake. Swing open the prison doors for all non-violent drug offenders. Problem solved.

[DBoon]

3. Take it out of the prosecutor's budget!

Balance the state budget and allow free legal representation.

[mumon]

4. AMEN! How can there be "justice"

if there isn't an even playing field between prosecution and defense?

[Occulus]

6. That's a very old problem.

Ask any public defender if they've ever received the same access to labs, experts, etc., as the state does.

I'd be surprised if you didn't get laughed at.

[Solly Mack]

5. Unreal...rights are too expensive to have now

Thanks Bush....

[Occulus]

7. hmmmm

"rights are too expensive to have now"

Funny you say that. I seem to remember a phrase along the lines of "the press is only free to those who own one" or some such. Please, if someone knows the actual quote, post it... I'm curious.

The internet represents the first time in history that a wildly popular public source of information can be used to publish one's works, effectively making all persons with internet access in some form to become "the press".

Oh, the net is chock full of drivel, I'll give you that; there is as much useless garbage on the internet as there is in every other form of media. But then, it's (mostly) the user's choice as to what he sees on the internet; the same cannot be said to be true of other forms of media.

For a very long time, the freedom of the press has been restricted to those who own the press. Now, we are beginning to see the internet become a steady, reliable, and most importantly credible source of information, news, and entertainment. In that sense, the net is a replacement for television, not a supplement or market for the same. This is why we continually see and hear the "oh, you only found that on the internet" argument when we state unpopular facts or present known but not spotliit documents or quotes. Once valid, but no longer, and the existence of the major media websites confirm that assertion.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we should all thank our Great Whomever that we have a source such as the net. We all can participate, and all we need at a minimum is a public library with net acces, of which there are many.

For the first time in US history, the freedom of the press is a literal fact.

Long live the internet!