50 years ago this Monday, the USSC asserted that there was a "right to counsel" in the case of "Gideon v. Wainwright" Justice Hugo Black justified it by saying
Reason and reflection require us to
recognize that, in our adversary
system of criminal justice, any person
haled into court, who is too poor to
hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a
fair trial unless counsel is provided
It occurs to me that this is simply substituting one set of rights violation...
- Essentially forcing Lawyers to work-for / defend clients they might not otherwise choose.
- Forcing the rest of us to pay for it.
...for another more fundamental one:
- The overly complex, non-objective, non rights-respecting laws we currently have.
I suspect that a (somewhat) parallel case would be "mandatory healthcare" issues.
Of course, most run-of-the-mill health issues are much simpler to attend to yourself than most law-related ones :)
Mar 15 '13 at 13:31
Jason Gibson ♦