Amongst many poor and disenfranchised U.S. citizens, public defenders are commonly called “public pretenders.” Part of the issue is that public defenders tend to have large case loads and be underpaid (I suppose). But mostly, public defenders have earned the ire of the public because time and again, they have, as a group, proven themselves to be inept and not up to the task of defending the public with any passion. But why should public defenders be less effective than a private attorney?
The reason why there are “good lawyers” and poor lawyers is because the law is not applied universally to cover or punish those accordingly. Essentially, if your lawyer cannot remember to apply applicable statutes, you may lose your case. The judge will not remind your attorney that a given precedent fits your case. That means that you may never see justice in any case. If your attorney doesn’t have an encyclopedic memory of the law, you could be screwed.
So I ask: is that justice? Is it just that the law is not applied if an attorney doesn’t know the law very well? It would seem to me that in a just world, justice would not depend upon whether someone was intelligent enough to argue persuasively or whether someone could remember to argue a valid point. Surely, justice should be determined by the law and nothing else.
But, I could be wrong. I’ve been wrong before when I thought I was wrong and turned out to be right…Holla.