Topic: The use of public defenders should be mandatory
if people have the money to pay for higher quality lawyers then why should they be denied this? when people have earned money they should have the right to spend it as they wish.
if public defenders are mandatory the entire private counsel becomes obsolete. lawyers will not be paid so well, the overall standard will fall and more innocent people will be convicted due to poor defence
if someone can afford a good defender, they should not be stopped from doing so.
if someone can afford a good lawyer you are violating their rights by stopping them
if someone can afford a high-paid attorney, they should not be forced to use a public defender instead as they are entitled to have the best defense they can buy
if someone feels they can represent themselves in court then they should not be forced to have a public defender
if someone has the means to afford the best representation they can, they should be allowed to do so in the interests of them getting the best defence.
if someone is unable to afford a lawyer their rights must be protected by providing representation
if someone wants to defend themselves that is their right
if wealthy and powerful members of society were reliant on public defenders, it would create an impetus to improve their funding and standards.
if you are in a legal situation, you should have to provide your own counsel
if you can afford a better more personalised experience you should be allowed to pay for one.
if you cannot choose your attorney and must accept a public defender appointed by the state, your statistical chances of a successful defense are reduced. this is a gross infringement of rights
if you have the financial means to employ the best defence, why shouldn't you be able to do that if it gives you a better chance of being found not guilty.
imposing use of public defenders takes away a person's right to choose.
in order to make sure that cases aren't tied up in appeals courts, defendants who can't afford their own attorney should be mandated to use a public defender to ensure a fair trial.
it allows the poor who don't have the funds to have legal advice to be able to attain legal advice
it cant be mandatory cause not all wants a public defender
it is a persons given right to choose to be defended or not, and it is a waste of the public's money to pay a public defender if a person chooses not have one.
it is a right to chose our own representation or not to
it is an individual right to decide which representation to use
it is not fair for the tax payer to carry the burden of paying the legal fees for every defendant.
it is the right to the people to have legal representation and this would insure that all people have the right and the means.
it is unfair that the rich have an edge over the poor in court, you should not be able to avoid prosecution because you have money. if all were appointed public defenders the system would be much more equal
it is unfair to take away the right to defend one's own actions if they so choose.
it keeps the playing field level in the courts