Topic: The use of public defenders should be mandatory

Argument: making a public defender mandatory takes away choice from those who may wish to find their own attorney or even just represent themselves.

Argument: making everyone use public defenders would lead to a fairer justice system; currently the rich can sometimes buy their way out of justice.

Argument: making it mandatory is a slight overkill.  mandatory for those that cannot get counsel another way, sure but the wording is too loose here so i must say no.

Argument: making public defenders mandatory would be a waste of public funds; public defenders should only be retained for those who cannot afford to pay for their own defence.

Argument: making public defenders mandatory would cost us too much money.

Argument: mandating public defenders will create tons of political backlash that will actualize in more conservative politicians winning office and more regulations giving rich people extra rights will pass.

Argument: mandating the  use of public defenders will ensure that all defendents are treated equally and not more favourably for those who can afford the best lawyers

Argument: mandating the use of public defenders ensures a fair trial for all.

Argument: mandatory public defence would be costly for the state. the money might be better off spent elsewhere such as fighting crime.

Argument: mandatory public defenders allows for a vigorous defense of all citizens.

Argument: mandatory representation by public defenders endures all defendents have a level playing field and that those with the most money are more likely to be acquitted when guilty