In 1963, the Supreme Court decided “that poor people accused of serious crimes be provided with lawyers paid for by the government" (Davey). This article explains how the state of Missouri has been recently refusing cases due to a smaller budget, a rising number of poor clients, and overworked lawyers. Because cases are getting pushed back and attorneys are getting stressed, it is possible that cases are unnecessarily delayed and innocent people are imprisoned only due to Missouri’s lack of funds. On page 34 in Policy Process, it discusses the 1960’s the national standards during that time. One of the judges from the article, however, says of a client that he doesn’t know how to “provide him with what the law of the land provides.” In class Thursday we discussed economic and political freedom. How is America to stay true to its people and also stick to the law if the funds do not allow us to do so? Is this situation “less important” because it deals with poor people who have committed crimes?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/us/10defenders.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
Posted By: Elise Leppert
I think that this article is a testament to the need for higher education in contemporary society. Clearly there are not enough lawyers or judges to handle this kind of demand. It has always been told that as the economy suffers crime will increase and with a struggling economy it is clear why demand for justice rises. I believe that there needs to be stronger push for incentives towards higher education for the public that may not be able to afford it (as long as they work for it.) This would help both lower crime and help satisfy the demand for higher educated professions.
ReplyDelete