JosephTheLibertarian
Banned
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 10,522
How do libertarians and Libertarians feel about public defense attorneys?
public defense
- Thread starter JosephTheLibertarian
- Start date
JosephTheLibertarian
Banned
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 10,522
Yes, I am. I'm just wondering, because I have never seen the topic come up... I'm a mixture of libertarian (not solely big "L" though I do like the LP platform) and part voluntaryist, not exclusively anarcho capitalist, I think that dictating a singular system to all of humanity is authoritarian. Voluntary Social Interaction
Why does the justice system have to be adversarial? Why are people required to spend a lot of money on an attorney when they are accused of a crime?
In a non-adversarial justice system, the defendant could represent himself and the judge would be expected to sure that things are fair.
In a non-adversarial justice system, the defendant could represent himself and the judge would be expected to sure that things are fair.
JosephTheLibertarian
Banned
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 10,522
I never said that was the Libertarian position. I said it was my personal position.
What keeps judges from abusing their power in the present? Practically nothing.
Judges should be exposed to free-market competition just like everybody else. Why not have multiple competing courts and multiple competing police forces.
Contrary to popular belief, I think such a system would not degenerate into complete violence and chaos. The current system has pretty much degenerated into complete violence and chaos!
What keeps judges from abusing their power in the present? Practically nothing.
Judges should be exposed to free-market competition just like everybody else. Why not have multiple competing courts and multiple competing police forces.
Contrary to popular belief, I think such a system would not degenerate into complete violence and chaos. The current system has pretty much degenerated into complete violence and chaos!
RonPaulForLife
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2007
- Messages
- 43
The 6th Amendment provides a right to counsel so there's no way around public defenders.
I don't know that there's any such thing as a single, unified libertarian perspective on this. There is likely a Libertarian Party position on it, but as I'm not a LP member I haven't checked.
It seems that if the state is authorized to level charges and to try the accused, they must also provide for the defense of the accused since not doing so would amount to an uncontested penalty against one who has not yet been found guilty of anything, this in the form of requiring the defendant to lay out money for his own defense. Those who could afford counsel would be "fined" summarily and those who could not would be easily imprisoned without access to suitable defense.
Of course, to allow an instrument of the same body that makes the accusation in the first place to be responsible for the defense of the accused has its problems.
As for checks upon judges' power, I agree with a previous poster that it is unchecked in many instances. But I would add that a properly understood and working jury system is a check upon judicial abuse.
It seems that if the state is authorized to level charges and to try the accused, they must also provide for the defense of the accused since not doing so would amount to an uncontested penalty against one who has not yet been found guilty of anything, this in the form of requiring the defendant to lay out money for his own defense. Those who could afford counsel would be "fined" summarily and those who could not would be easily imprisoned without access to suitable defense.
Of course, to allow an instrument of the same body that makes the accusation in the first place to be responsible for the defense of the accused has its problems.
As for checks upon judges' power, I agree with a previous poster that it is unchecked in many instances. But I would add that a properly understood and working jury system is a check upon judicial abuse.
Similar threads
