The Department of Justice motto is: Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur which loosely translates to She who prosecutes on behalf of justice or Who For Lady Justice Strives The judiciary is an adversarial system. In fact it tends to be vindctive and prejudicial. All district/prosecuting attorneys are merely judges in waiting hoping to land one of those Honorable Judge positions and remain there for life unless you get caught in bed with a dead girl or live boy There is some work involved in currying the favor of the Governor and particularly, sucking up to the Governor's Council. Take note of the employment history of the judges. There will always be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Their power leads them to a consuming, blinding sense of entitlement. SCOTUS decision to fund the poor litigants: Gideon v. Wainwright March 18, 1963 Why not everybody? Public defendants for everyone Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) in 1963, is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that in criminal cases states are required under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to provide an attorney to defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys. You immediately realize that justice requires money. Why should justice require money? This decision clearly shows us that this system is corrupt . If the government can bring charges against you and you're unable to have someone represent and defend you, that's the route to totalitarianism. You're stripped of your rights. While moving the bar of indigency upward would alter the calculus somewhat, and rid us of the assumption that poor means dirt poor, and anyone who isn't dirt poor is wealthy enough to afford to pay for a criminal defense, it reduces the number of people who fall into the no-man's-land of criminal defense but does not eliminate the problem. People who are solidly middle class, maybe even upper middle class, really aren’t equipped to handle a serious criminal defense. The concept of equal protection under the law in the Fourteenth Amendment seems limited to certain characteristics such as sex, age, race and religion but not wealth. The Gideon v. Wainwright decision distinctively discriminates based on wealth. Why? Why does the very concept of justice require money? Why can't anyone get a free government lawyer. All Americans should have the right to counsel at government expense when the government charges them with a crime. We should have a universal public defender system, one to which all Americans can turn to counsel when they are accused. Taxpayers fund each prosecution no matter how grave or frivolous. Why not create a system that funds both prosecution and defense equally. In plain English, each and every person accused of a crime should have court appointed counsel with the same resources as the prosecutorial side. Prosecutors have virtually unlimited discretion to bring charges and they are armed with staffs that include not just investigators, but experts from forensics labs and the efforts of law enforcement at the local, state and national level. Very few defendants faced with this arsenal are as well equipped and can provide an adequate defense to a criminal case. A universal public defender system does not mean conscripting all members of the bar and making them government employees. It means that all members of the bar can apply to be included on a list of qualified defenders. It also means that making your way onto that list and remaining there, requires demonstrating minimal competence in the difficult work of defending the accused. A ddefendant should get a free lawyer with the same experience level as the district attorney (one whose sole purpose in life is to prosecute). When the government charges a person with a crime, the work of police officers, prosecutors, experts and investigators are all borne by taxpayers. The full weight of the government, with it's almost magical ability to finance just about anything by means of taxation, is brought to bear against an individual. Who can match the government's spendng and resources in defending a crime? The only way to rein in an aggressive government is to require it to bear the costs of the fights it picks. The government should be required to calculate the unit cost of each prosecution: what does it cost to bring an action? And we speak here of both the prosecution and defense. The notion that justice requires money makes a mockery of the judicial system and clearly shows the corruption of the judicial system.

Send comments to: hjw2001@gmail.com