Monday, October 29, 2007
Theory Post
The connection between the effect of economic status on the application of justice is a tough question to be answered nowadays. Statistics show that more black men are convicted of the death penalty than white men. Racism has been in existence for a long time in this country, and I believe that part of this thinking still plagues the justice system today. In comparison to whites a higher number of blacks are in the poverty category and therefore are more susceptible to crime. The difference is even further stressed in that many minorities who have lower incomes are against the death penalty further emphasizing the difference between the upper and lower classes. Lower incomes also prevent many defendants from hiring good lawyers who can help defend their cases. Jonothan E. Gradess executive director of the New York State Defenders Association when commenting on the reduction of fees for defense lawyers said "I think this is going to drive away quality lawyers." If the defendant is not able to hire a quality lawyer his chance of having a good defence is greatly reduced. The high wage demands that many lawyers make reduce the chance that the defendants will be able to afford to hire him. It is estimated that a good defense would cost $100,000 for lawyers and then 50,000 for investigators. Such high figures require that the defendant has a large amount of money which is often not the case. History also shows us that men of great wealth have more power and can therefore get themselves out of trouble. This is done by hiring a quality lawyer or even doing settlements outside of court to avoid a guilty conviction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I am really glad that you are addressing the fact of the quality of lawyer one is able to obtain through their social status in society. However who gets to decide what is a good and what is bad? The state will appoint you a lawyer if you cannot afford one, does that mean that the state is frowning upon one's educational background? Or that the state is setting the poor up for a lost cause? Also the court system is suppose to be blind, a lawyer is a lawyer no matter what college they went to. One is to be found guilty based on evidence and facts. Could it be that this shows a flaw within our judicial system, that people's sentencing is based on the outside presentation, rather than the truth that lies within?
I don't disagree with you that the reason many lower income people are convicted is because they do not have the money to hire good attorneys to defend them and the attorneys appointed to them by the state lack high tech resources and experts. The court system does not seem to want to take responsibility and are apathetic to defendants once they've done their "duty" of assigning an attorney, no mattter how under-qualified.
This has less to do with the acutal justice system's flaw but one of your statements talked about how there are more low-income people convicted in jail, but I beleive that a part of that has to do with the fact that low-income is typically associated with a lower standard of living and are more exposed to crimes. But that aspect is just a flaw of life.
Post a Comment