Bill Cosby sex assault conviction overturned by court

[CM156]

Another solution: place a legal cap on how much a lawyer can charge.

For all sorts of lawyers or just criminal defense ones?

This is the big thing. There are huge disparities in resource availability to prosecutors' offices to public defenders' offices. Last I checked, the national average is a 3:1 ratio in funding between prosecutors' offices and defenders' offices. That's just for the offices, mind; prosecutors' offices get ancillary and incidental support from police departments.

That means prosecutors' offices are better-staffed, better organized, and better supported. And, there's a substantial pay gap between prosecutors' offices and public defenders' offices. All of which means public defenders are understaffed, underpaid, and overworked for what they do, which degrades the strength of defense a public defender can levy -- while being a less attractive job that brings in lower-caliber applicants, and a lot of times that's new attorneys seeking law school debt relief because public defense qualifies for it.

That latter issue is especially noteworthy as it invokes the spectre of socioeconomics, generational wealth, and professional connections. A generationally-wealthy graduate from a high-tier law school, who graduated comparatively debt-free and could afford summer internship getting a good post-graduation CV and solid professional connections, won't need debt relief and thus will be less-inclined to seek civil service work while having a foot in the door for more-lucrative positions. On the flip-side, most graduates of modest means are going to have to seek civil service debt relief as their first priority for post-graduation employment.

In reality, public defenders are jobbers. Court's a zero-sum game; a 90%+ conviction rate means defense attorneys can expect a sub-10% success rate. That doesn't mean public defenders are out there throwing cases, it means public defenders are systemically crippled in their ability to represent defendants; or as Scalia put it in another context, one side gets to fight freestyle while the other has to follow Marquis of Queensbury rules. Most of the time, the best they can do for the resources available to them compared to their caseload is to negotiate the best-possible plea deal.


There are no guarantors of success, but a high-priced legal team is certainly one of the things closest to it. Case in point, OJ Simpson.

Excellent points.

 

[Silvanus]

For all sorts of lawyers or just criminal defense ones?

Criminal defence and prosecution were the kinds I was referring to as a salve for this particular problem, but I'm not against pay caps in general. I suppose a cap across all legal disciplines would be necessary to make sure talent doesn't drain from criminal defence to other work.

 

[CM156]

Criminal defence and prosecution were the kinds I was referring to as a salve for this particular problem, but I'm not against pay caps in general. I suppose a cap across all legal disciplines would be necessary to make sure talent doesn't drain from criminal defence to other work.

Problem is that you can't really put a cap on tort work when you have people work on contingencies (lawyers only get paid when they win). There's a cap on the percentage in some jurisdictions, but that's about it.

Instead of trying to handicap the rich, I think it's far more prudent (and workable) to give more advantages to the poor.

 

[Silvanus]

Problem is that you can't really put a cap on tort work when you have people work on contingencies (lawyers only get paid when they win). There's a cap on the percentage in some jurisdictions, but that's about it.

Instead of trying to handicap the rich, I think it's far more prudent (and workable) to give more advantages to the poor.

This isn't about handicapping the rich. If the rich can afford better lawyers than the poor, then the poor are being denied representation of equivalent quality. They are at a systemic disadvantage.

The tort thing is easily worked around. Work out a separate cap for the purpose of stemming any brain-drain from prosecution/ defence to tort.

 

[CM156]

If the rich can afford better lawyers than the poor, then the poor are being denied representation of equivalent quality.

There is legal entitlement to competent representation.
Not equitable representation.
I think issues of the poor having access to competent representation can be addressed by less intrusive means, such as by increasing funding to public defender's offices.

 

[Silvanus]

There is legal entitlement to competent representation.
Not equitable representation.

Indeed, which in my opinion is a travesty. It merely ensures that the rich people get it (and access to justice), and the poor people don't.

I think issues of the poor having access to competent representation can be addressed by less intrusive means, such as by increasing funding to public defender's offices.

This might address the disparity between prosecution and defence, but it wouldn't address the inequity between rich and poor defendants/ claimants.

 

[CM156]

This might address the disparity between prosecution and defence, but it wouldn't address the inequity between rich and poor defendants/ claimants.

You're talking about civil cases here, yes?

 

[Gergar12]

Only correction is that Cosby didn't agree to anything, it was a unilateral statement from the DA.


Horrible idea on par with using a flamethrower to remove fleas from a cat: It might work, but would create more problems in the process. Especially when there are far less disruptive ways to address the problem.

Your statement "every lawyer" would include corporate lawyers and tort lawyers. Now, if you mean "every criminal defense lawyer", which I'm going to assume you meant, that would just be a mess. People are entitled to choose, in a consensual transaction, who they wish to represent them in legal matters. A system in which all defense attorneys are dependent on the state for compensation jeopardizes that. What happens if they run up bills in excess of what the state will compensate? You either allow defendants to privately compensate them, which undermines this very system, or you risk preventing people from putting on the best defense they want to spend money on.

Also, hiring a high priced legal team is no grantee of success. Need I remind you that Harvey Weinstein is currently in prison, despite the fortune he spent on his defense?

Now, giving the public defender's office the same funding as prosecutors, that might be better.

No, I am serious I meant every lawyer. Corporate shill defenders Corporate lawyers included.

 

[Eacaraxe]

This might address the disparity between prosecution and defence, but it wouldn't address the inequity between rich and poor defendants/ claimants.

Disparities between prosecution and defense are just one branch of the thorn bush. Solving for equity between prosecutors' and defenders' offices alone won't solve the issue, as US criminal justice law is all but purpose-built to enforce socioeconomic inequity and that impacts in turn all aspects of criminal procedure. The entire system would have to be burnt to the ground and rebuilt in its entirety to get from where we are now, to what you want.

Which is, to be frank, the implication of basically every post I've ever made on CJ reform here.

 

[CM156]

No, I am serious I meant every lawyer. Corporate shill defenders Corporate lawyers included.

Duly noted.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Make the law simple enough that you don't need lawyers at all.

 

[CM156]

Make the law simple enough that you don't need lawyers at all.

I don't know if that's quite achievable.
Or even desirable.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I don't know if that's quite achievable.
Or even desirable.

A lawyer would say that.

 

[Gordon_4]

A lawyer would say that.

I’m not a lawyer but I agree with him. The world is far more complex than days of yore. That said I think Eacaraxe makes tremendous sense with better funding for public defenders.

 

[CM156]

A lawyer would say that.

You're right, but not for the reasons you're implying.
Simple codes of laws work for simple societies. We no longer live in such a society.

 

[Seanchaidh]

You're right, but not for the reasons you're implying.
Simple codes of laws work for simple societies. We no longer live in such a society.

This is also something a lawyer would say. For the reasons I was implying.

 

[Cicada 5]

This is also something a lawyer would say. For the reasons I was implying.

I am not a lawyer and I agree with CM156. What you are asking for is impossible.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I am not a lawyer and I agree with CM156. What you are asking for is impossible.

Not knowing how something would work does not make it impossible.

 

[Cicada 5]

Not knowing how something would work does not make it impossible.

And stubbornly insisting it can be done with no evidence to support it doesn't make it possible.

Lawyers exist for a reason, whether you like it or not.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Not knowing how something would work does not make it impossible.

You can defend yourself and cases usually only come down to knowing a very small part of the law. The whole Cosby case is pretty understandable just researching it yourself for like an hour. And probably a lot of lawyers are pretty bad. I was a juror on a police brutality case and the plaintiff's lawyer wasn't very smart. The guy got his jaw broken by a cop for punching him as the guy was coming at him. And the dude's lawyer argued that the policeman should've used his gun and shot him instead for less excessive force and I almost broke out laughing. Also, the lawyer couldn't even get his girlfriend and her sister on the same page so their testimonies were different and they and the cop were the only witnesses since the guy had no memory of the incident himself.