Topic: The use of public defenders should be mandatory
public defenders should not be mandatory as it unfair that they are paid for from the public purse. if committing a crime then the defendant should be made to pay for their own defense.
public defenders should not be mandatory as they are often overworked and underpaid, this would only add to the strain and workload.
public defenders should not be mandatory as this will put extra pressure on the justice system.
public defenders should not be mandatory because it will affect peoples cases since they can physical tell them your story
public defenders should not be mandatory because that is a huge waste of money. some crimes are so obvious or so easy to defend that the defendant can take care of it themselves.
Public defenders should not be mandatory because there are times that people want to defend themselves.
public defenders should not be mandatory for people who already plead guilty to crimes they've committed
public defenders should not be mandatory people have a right to whatever lawyer they choose
public defenders should represent an obligation as part of a more objective orientation of the trials
public defenders shouldn't be mandatory because they are often overworked and underpaid for what they do
public defenders will get paid regardless, they don't care about the outcome of their cases.
public defenders will keep all court cases fair.
public defenders won't work very hard because they will get paid the same regardless.
public defenders would be spread to thin and unable to meet demand which would result in long waits for court hearings and trials.
public defendors cost taxpayers more money and therefore should not be mandatory.
public defendors must be used so that a defendant can have a fair trial.
public defense is given by its obligation to assist
legally to the person prosecuted criminally, with total orientation to the interests of the client
and ensuring the provision of quality service
Right now people can essentially pay their way out of jail by hiring a fancy lawyer, if everyone has to use public defenders the rich and poor will be on a more even playing field.
Right now there is no incentive to invest in public defenders because those who use them have no money for influence. If use is mandatory, rich people are more likely to divert resources into them.
Separate public and private defender systems contribute to social instability by being a very obvious example of the state providing preferential treatment to the rich.
Some criminals prefer to defend themselves and not use any lawyer, making the use of a public defender mandatory infringes on their rights.
some lawyers are superior, and forcing these to be public defenders would chase potential lawyers from the profession.
some lawyers would not do a good job for their client since they wouldn't make much money
Some people can be effective self-advocates and should not be forced to use a public defender.
sometimes it's better to have no representation at all than to have a public defender.  sometimes they just don't care whatsoever and can hurt your case as such.