That whatever the prosecution spends in a criminal case, the defence should be entitled to

My opponent opens the last round of the debate by stating that:"this debate comes down to three key points of clash:1) Whether the grand jury model adopted by 22 of the US states is an effective counter model.2) Whether non-legal aid lawyers can in fact be shown to be better.3) Whether legal aid lawyers have a more difficult job"I don't agree with this statement. Weather grand juries are effective or not is not part of the debate, the same way that we are not debating about the ability of lawyers or how hard the job of the defense is compared to the job of the prosecution.We are debating about money! More precisely on how public money should be spent. I am of the opinion that public defenders should not be entitled to the same amount of money of public defenders for a very simple reason: The public prosecutor is working in the interest of the public, since criminal cases are cases against the state, weather a legal aid lawyer is representing a private person who is responsible for his own interests and who he will be defending even if he knows that the person is guilty.The public also realizes that in some cases, when a person in not able to afford a defense or is unable to defend himself in court, there is the need of a public defender.However, it would be unreasonable to provide extra money for the defense of a person who is on trial because first of all the burden of proof is on the prosecution, which means it is the prosecutor who has to show beyond reasonable doubt that the person on trial is guilty, and more expansive lawyer cannot change the evidence in a case. Also, most criminal cases don't even go to trial 90-95%, but are settled with plea bargains, which means that the great majority of people who end up in front of the judge are guilty, so paying more to the defense would be a waste in at least 90% of the cases. [1]In his argument about grand juries my opponent states that "A grand jury only looks at one side of the picture, and for the trial to be truly fair, and have due process, both sides of the story need to be looked at."This is of course non sensical, because the grand jury does not rule on weather the person is guilty or not, but on weather there is enough evidence for a trial. The "other side of the story will be brought up during the trial itself.The job of the grand jury is to make sure that the judicial process will not be misused. If for example I accuse my neighbor of stealing my car just to get back at him for being loud last night, the jury will look for evidence for a trial, and will deny one if there is no evidence for it.In his next argument, my opponent argues that even if he is not able to show empirical evidence for a relation between better lawyers and pay, it does not matter because it is obvious that there are lawyers with different skills and experience.He argues further that allocating the same resources to the public defense will provide a competitive advantage and lure better lawyers to take up jobs as public defenders.I highly doubt this point. Lawyers who are making more money are highly likable to be working for private companies and be specialized in civil law which is highly lucrative, therefore offering more money for the public defense would not improve the quality of the lawyers but only give more money to the very same lawyers that my opponent argues are not qualified in the first place.My opponent argues that the trials of OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson ended up with the juries finding them innocent because of their wealth. I dispute this point, as well as the idea that "billionaires almost never go to jail". Bernie Madoff is in Jail, so are Kenneth Lay and Tray Titus. If you wonder why a lot of inmates in the US are non-white, by the way funny that you mentioned OJ and MJ, since they both got absolved and they were both african-americans, is indeed because white people are on average wealthier. However you make the assumption that they are in jail because their lawyers weren't paid well enough by the public ( that's the people who work and don't commit crimes) to argue in their defense, weather the truth is that poorer people are prone to commit more crimes and get caught more often.In his closing argument my opponent writes that "what the defense needs is not evidence showing that the crime was done, but rather evidence that the crime was not done."This can of course be found only if the person who is on trial is indeed innocent. If a crime was committed there won't be any and therefore paying more to a defense lawyer to find something that is not there, will not help anybody but hurt the public.In his example about a New Zealand case, my opponent argues that "the police didn't gather information to help the defense. They gathered information to get a conviction."This example is again, nonsensical. The police is not involved in the trial, and they gather evidence before the trial. It is their job to gather evidence for a conviction, because somebody must have committed the crime. He furthermore writes that "You don't go to court to get justice, but rather to outmaneuver the other side's arguments. One side is inherently advantaged because they have an argument already set up for them by the police. All they need to do is apply the law."This comment somehow shows a deep lack of understanding of the criminal process. Even though it is the job of a lawyer to present an argumentation that has to be convincing, this arguments are based on evidence that links a crime with its perpetrator. They don't just need to apply the law, they need to show beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.And again, the prosecution doesn't have "an argument already set up for them by the police". They have evidence of a crime.The burden of proof is still on the prosecution and even in cases where there is a strong reason to believe that the defendant has committed the crime he must be let go because of lack of evidence.My opponent says that the defense has to investigate as well as do their ordinary work, they have a harder job than prosecutors. This point is somehow an oxymoron because if the defendant is innocent and honest with his lawyer, the lawyer will know where the defendant was at the time of the crime and be able to provide an alibi or an explanation for it. Investigation is needed when trying to find out something that is not known. A defendant always knows what he did and so should his lawyer.In his final point my opponent takes the stand that allocating the same money to the defense is necessary if you "believe in fair justice, if you believe in equal representation, if you believe loaning money to help your struggling neighbor is an ethical investment,"This is of course a populistic attempt to influence the voters into believing that this step is necessary to ensure all the above mentioned, which I showed it is not, and would on the contrary be just a huge waste of taxpayers' money.A due process is guaranteed by the courts and by the law, which holds the prosecution and the defense accountable to the same rules, not by the amount of money a lawyer makes.Since the burden of proof is on the prosecution and since the prosecution is representing the interest of the people, it is logical that they need more resources. On the other hand, giving the same amount of money to the public defense would not only not prevent innocent people to be sentenced wrongly.Vote Con! [1]http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com...