Okay, so I feel the need to talk a little bit more about this whole indigent defense thing. I didn't say a whole lot last time, mostly just whatever I said in that essay I posted.
So, here's my thing. According to Gideon v. Wainwright and Argersinger v. Hamlin, anyone charged with a crime that might have be facing incarceration for any period of time is entitled to an attorney. That is made very clear in those cases. Additionally, defendants have the right to a speedy trial, as guaranteed by our bill of rights. The problem now is that those two things seem to be mutually exclusive. If you want to be represented by an attorney, you could be waiting awhile to get one, or the one you do have will be too busy to try your case anytime soon. If you want a speedy trial, you almost have to waive your right to an attorney. In some states this system is better than others. However, here are a few startling facts about one of the states that is supposed to have one of the best indigent defense systems in the country: Oregon. Yes, it is my home state, and that is probably why I know so much about it, but anyway, here are some facts:
- Oregon had a seven million dollar gap in the indigent defense budget until an emergency committee committee was called last January, when the legislature was not in session, to move that seven million dollars from the general fund to the PDSC's (Public Defense Services Commission) budget.
- A report came out last spring that Oregon has lost millions of dollars due to workers for the PDSC misunderstanding the outlines for eligibility and awarding thousands of defendants attorneys who could have easily paid for them, had the PDSC noticed they had assets they had failed to mention.
- In May 2003, 28,000 defendants who had been long awaiting trial were denied attorneys in an Oregon Supreme Court case. The case invloved a public defense office suing the state, asking the executive branch to demand that the legislature appropriate the correct amount of funds so that they could afford to pay for representation for these people. The court, particularly the chief justice, felt that making these people wait for trial longer was not really unconstitutional. He basically denied the maxim, "Justice delayed is justice denied," and the whole speedy trial thing in our constitution. It's been awhile since I read that, but there might have also been something about a speedy trial not being a fundamental right. I could be wrong about him saying that, but I know something to that effect has been said.
Now, looking at these examples, do you even want to know what some of the worst states are like? There was a Florida case of a man who was in jail for 8 years awaiting trial before a judge ordered him released. The only reason the judge ever heard the case, however, was because his family scraped together all the money they could for an attorney to argue for his release. Had the family not been there for this man, I do not doubt he would still be sitting in jail awaiting trial.
Anyway, I will stop right now and just leave it alone for a bit. Just FYI, for anyone who is against the death penalty, or even has some questions about it, you might want to check out www.deadmantalking.com . It's a website with these letters posted on it from this guy who is sitting on death row in California. I don't know whether he is guilty or not and I don't care to speculate, but it's interesting all the same.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
