Right to a fair trial?

Questions about Objectivism
1

The phrase “right to health care” may seem like a con game for something that means stealing from neighbors. I always thought that coming out and saying “for the greater good” is an honest way for a liberal to say what they mean, but I thought “right” was improper for the context.

When thinking about rights, it raised a few questions. According to objectivism, should all individuals have the right to a fair trial if charged with a crime? If so, according to objectivism: Should an innocent, poor individual who can not afford to hire an attorney be given no public defender when facing a very brilliant prosecutor hired at a high price?

If an objectivist advocates that a poor person who can not afford any defense attorney may face a prosecutor, would that person have a fair trial?

I have been going over this in my head and thought it would be interesting to hear the input of objectivists. Thanks.

2

Well , yeah of course they should be entitled to a fair trial. One cannot be rationally convicted of a crime without a trial or some way of proving that one actually is guilty of such. Obviously it would have to be a fair trial, or else it is pointless to bother.

Yes a poor person would have a fair trial too. If they could not afford to hire a lawyer, I am sure there would be options. There could be “State-appointed” lawyers available to such people, or perhaps the courts could pay for the costs of hiring a lawyer if it could be shown that person could not pay for it at the time and that no lawyer would accept such terms. Or maybe in rare cases some lawyers might choose to work for less/free if it was a case they really really cared about or had some interest in.

But yeah, I see no reason why the fact that the defendant might be poor would create a barrier to him or her undergoing a fair trial.

3

I observed two people in a debate. One of them said the following content.

Do you have a right to a fair trial? Sure, if you consider substandard public defenders against seasoned lawyers fair.

I will ask the same question they asked: Do you consider substandard public defenders against seasoned lawyers fair [a fair trial]?

4

A fair trial is one that strives to discover what the evidence weighs in favor of.

6

I will ask the same question they asked: Do you consider substandard public defenders against seasoned lawyers fair [a fair trial]?

No, because truth isn’t determined by a lawyer. If a lawyer is what’s determining justice, that’s hardly fair/proper.

What do you consider to be a fair trial?

7

Do you consider substandard public defenders against seasoned lawyers fair [a fair trial]?

This distorts reality. What we have are standard public defenders against standard public prosecutors. They are both public employees.

Just as doctors help poor people out of benevolence, so do lawyers. And, just as many people give charitably to help poor people who are dying, so many would give charitably to help those who can’t afford to defend themselves.

8

Yeah know , a fair trial is one in with the judge/jury use the facts of reality in which to determine whether or not the accused are guilty, using a lit tle thing called evidence. If there is sufficent evidence to logically prove ones guilt, they get sentenced. If not, well they do not. There should be a logical criteria of what qualifies as evidence and what does not and what is more, what constitutes a crime would be objectively defined, as woulde what qualifies as being guilty of breaking a given law.

A fair trial is one in which the facts are presented and the accused and accusors are free to present the relevant facts in order to prove or disprove the accuseds guilt. It does not consist of allowing useless hacks to ask useless questions which distort the facts and which are not do constitute a proper means of proving ones case. Such “lawyers” should not be permitted to waste a courts time and would be replaced, by a capable court lawyer if required.

9

The problem is the ridiculously convoluted legal system that places obscure precedence and alternative readings of the meaning of “is” above objective evaluation of the evidence.

That seems to make a lot of sense. Lack of objective criteria in law is a recipe for judges and juries to cause differing outcomes? Is that the idea?

What do you consider to be a fair trial?

That is the question I came here to brainstorm. Your insights seem to helping it along.

This distorts reality. What we have are standard public defenders against standard public prosecutors. They are both public employees.

I am not sure what you mean. There are public defenders who are paid by the government. Also, there private attorneys whom (who or whom?) own private firms and customers pay them directly. There are, of course, some attorneys that do both. Are you accounting for these distinctions? Do you reject that there is any statistically significant tendency for defense attorneys charging money via private firms to win more cases?

Just as doctors help poor people out of benevolence, so do lawyers. And, just as many people give charitably to help poor people who are dying, so many would give charitably to help those who can’t afford to defend themselves.

Are you saying that anyone else, including every innocent person who has not received voluntary donations and can not afford to hire an attorney, would have no defense attorney? If your answer is “yes,” do you think a fair trial is one in which an innocent individual has no defense attorney? Remember, a JD is typically seen as a 3-year degree that follows a Bachelor’s Degree; to my knowledge, that is the minimum credential for a district attorneys.

More food for thought: Ayn Rand sees morality as a means to an end: If individuals compel another innocent individual (defendant) to sacrifice his or her time on trial, and that defendant is found to be innocent, should the defendant be compensated for the time?

10

Consider just that generally, the point of a trial is that it is a method in which to determine whether someone is guilty of some crime or wrongdoing. I’m not actually sure where the idea of having attorneys argue for their client comes from. I do not see how that is supposed to benefit an objective ruling, since guilt isn’t measured by the strength of an argument. Guilt is measured by evidence. The way I understand it, what may work better is to have a judge ask for evidence from the accuser and investigators and anything else so that an objective judgment can be made. To be clear, I’m only suggesting an idea for a system that works better. It doesn’t make sense for me to make a trial part private and part government run. If we want courts to be run by the government, there shouldn’t be a private force involved in the actual trial. Sort of like how the military has its own court system, and the accused don’t even get a lawyer. I can explain further if needed.

The “charity” argument doesn’t make sense because we’re talking about what ideally should be a government service that all people would have. The quality of services should not have anything to do with *if* someone wanted to be charitable. What if no one did? Would it be okay for the person to be without a lawyer and get a poor defense? With medical care, we’d just say it’s unfortunate, for all the various reasons medical care is not a right. With a trial, we’re talking about something that all people need to have if there is to be fair and proper evaluation of evidence: a lawyer. There isn’t a right per se to a lawyer/trial, but people do have a right to proper government services if they’re a citizen. The quality of a trial should never have any relation to charity.

11

I am not sure what you mean. There are public defenders who are paid by the government. Also, there private attorneys whom (who or whom?) own private firms and customers pay them directly. There are, of course, some attorneys that do both. Are you accounting for these distinctions? Do you reject that there is any statistically significant tendency for defense attorneys charging money via private firms to win more cases?

Yes, there is some confusion. Here is what you asked:

Do you consider substandard public defenders against seasoned lawyers fair [a fair trial]?

And here is what I answered:

This distorts reality. What we have are standard public defenders against standard public prosecutors. They are both public employees.

In a trial we have public defenders against public prosecutors. If you are saying that public defenders are substandard because they are public employees, then it seems like the field is leveled if they arguing against public employees.

12

It doesn’t make sense for me to make a trial part private and part government run. If we want courts to be run by the government, there shouldn’t be a private force involved in the actual trial.

It would be a violation of one’s rights if they could not spend whatever they wanted to defend themselves at trial.

The “charity” argument doesn’t make sense because we’re talking about what ideally should be a government service that all people would have. The quality of services should not have anything to do with *if* someone wanted to be charitable. […] The quality of a trial should never have any relation to charity.

The only reason I bring up the “charity” argument is because that is one point I thought the inquisitor was alluding to. I covered both public employees and private ones. Both of which a poor person would have access to. So obviously the quality of trial should not be affected but certainly, if charity can help one with their defense, then it should not be outlawed.

13

It’s easy to look at a trial theoretically and say that evidence is all that matters.. but realistically, juries are not completely objective. And lawyer representation seems to be very important:

“After dissecting and analyzing all 5,224 felony criminal cases filed in Denver in 2002, they have come to the shocking conclusion that the average sentence for clients of public defenders was almost three years longer compared to those defendants that utilize the services of a private lawyers.” [1]

Of course other studies have been done in different locations and show different things, but these results are really interesting. Especially when you consider that private lawyers take on more serious cases where the crimes are more severe.

Anyways, there are some major differences between public and private lawyers. Public defenders for example can only spend a certain amount of time with each client because they always have multiple people to represent. “Public defender clients often complain that they lacked significant contact with their appointed counsel outside of court appearances.” They’re also crazy under funded, short staffed, over worked, paid less than private lawyers, etc. All of these issues definitely impact the quality of the arguments that are made, and partially account for the statistic seen above.

Back to your question, should a person be given public representation if he can’t afford (or maybe just chooses not to spend the money on) a private lawyer? Yes. But the quality of that lawyer is out of his control.

14

It would be a violation of one’s rights if they could not spend whatever they wanted to defend themselves at trial.

I didn’t say that a person shouldn’t be allowed to spend whatever they want.

The only reason I bring up the “charity” argument is because that is one point I thought the inquisitor was alluding to. I covered both public employees and private ones. Both of which a poor person would have access to. So obviously the quality of trial should not be affected but certainly, if charity can help one with their defense, then it should not be outlawed.

I didn’t say it should be outlawed. I’m talking about what may be more just. In particular, *perhaps* a system that doesn’t use lawyers and instead operates in a way that how much you spend doesn’t correlate with quality of your defense. Cost shouldn’t even come into the equation, nor should it even come up that charity needs to be considered. I was asking if it would be proper to let it so a person might not even get a lawyer, period.

15

It’s easy to look at a trial theoretically and say that evidence is all that matters.. but realistically, juries are not completely objective. And lawyer representation seems to be very important:

Actually, it is not so easy to look at a trial objectively, and determine that evidence is all that matters. This would require an understanding of how one determines what qualifies as evidence objectively, and ensuring that that evidence is objectively relative to the case at hand. To state that juries are not completely objective is just another way of saying that people are not completely objective. The last I checked, judges and lawyers are also people. If a person decides to study law to become a judge or a lawyer, does this somehow transform them into providing objectivity to the situations they are involved within?

How does it follow that because objectivity is not automatic, that the amount of money spent in a given situation determines if it is fair or not? This seems to suggest that under the guise of stating that a person has a right to a fair trial, but fair trials are not possible because verdicts are “bought”, rather than determined by an appeal to the evidence available.

Yes, in America there is are documents that state an person has a right to a fair trial. This alone does not ensure fairness. The criteria for fairness is outlined, and can be obtained, if those involved in providing it adhere to the criteria. Can this be purchased by monetary means?

16

Consider just that generally, the point of a trial is that it is a method in which to determine whether someone is guilty of some crime or wrongdoing. I’m not actually sure where the idea of having attorneys argue for their client comes from.

I guess it evolved as an attempted solution to some problem people once experienced. The Napoleonic code combined the magistrate & prosecutor into a single “truth-finder” role. De jure, this role was supposed to be fair. I guess the adversarial system came from the experience of having magistrates more or less presume guilt and not advocate enough (with themselves) for the defendant’s right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Splitting the role of prosecutor and judge is one attempted solution. Adding a defendant’s advocate helps even more. (Aside: Juries are another attempt to solve the problem of bias through structure and systems.)

An alternative set of structures and systems that can protect the rights of a defendant ought to be fine as well. Consider a system where a poor defendant cannot afford a lawyer. Imagine that we have some rules that say that a judge has special responsibilities in this situation – to keep a check on what the prosecutor does, and to explain more arcane points of law to the defendant. I think rules like that would be fine as a check/balance in the defense of rights. If we take it to the next step and say that instead of one judge, there should two people: one doing the judging and the other keeping the prosecutor in check and explaining the more arcane points of law to the defendant, you end up with the system we have today. . As things stand, I see the public advocate more as a part of the system designed to be a small check on government power , more than as charity for the defendant – even though it does work that way too.

17

Actually, it is not so easy to look at a trial objectively, and determine that evidence is all that matters. This would require an understanding of how one determines what qualifies as evidence objectively, and ensuring that that evidence is objectively relative to the case at hand. To state that juries are not completely objective is just another way of saying that people are not completely objective. The last I checked, judges and lawyers are also people. If a person decides to study law to become a judge or a lawyer, does this somehow transform them into providing objectivity to the situations they are involved within?

How does it follow that because objectivity is not automatic, that the amount of money spent in a given situation determines if it is fair or not? This seems to suggest that under the guise of stating that a person has a right to a fair trial, but fair trials are not possible because verdicts are “bought”, rather than determined by an appeal to the evidence available.

The posters above seemed to suggest that in fair trials, evidence is all that matters. For the reasons you outlined, there can be no such thing if that is the definition of a fair trial.

The amount of money doesn’t determine if it’s fair or not. Of course there is a spectrum of lawyers: some are really good (as in they win a lot of cases), and some are not as good. I’m not saying that public lawyers never win any cases, or that by having a private lawyer you will win your case. The quality of the lawyer is more important than the type (public or private), but there are certain factors that make the job very difficult for public lawyers:

Public defenders for example can only spend a certain amount of time with each client because they always have multiple people to represent. “Public defender clients often complain that they lacked significant contact with their appointed counsel outside of court appearances.” They’re also crazy under funded, short staffed, over worked, paid less than private lawyers, etc. All of these issues definitely impact the quality of the arguments that are made, and partially account for the statistic seen above.

Lawyers are not the only important factor in trials, of course: the severity of the crime, potential punishment for such a crime, jury members feelings, evidence presented, and even non-admissible statements that the jury members hear, all influence their decision. There’s even other factors that come into play: depending on the number of jury members who have voted a certain way (I think I read that it’s 8/12), the 4 other jury members will usually change their votes when the decision has to be unanimous.

The judges who did the study I mentioned above are trying to find ways to make the playing field more fair, at least when it comes to private vs. public lawyers.

“…suggests that we tighten the requirements to declare that someone is indigent. He feels that doing this would save taxpayer money and reduce the disparity of outcomes between public defenders and private lawyers. Others feel that increasing financing for public defenders is a solution. Ever since the 1980′s, per client spending per client in most systems has taken a big dip and has never really risen since. Privatization is yet another proposed solution.”

18

The posters above seemed to suggest that in fair trials, evidence is all that matters. For the reasons you outlined, there can be no such thing if that is the definition of a fair trial.

The reasons I outlined are why there are people who do not beleive that a fair trial might be had.

The price of fairness, however, is not monetary, it is adherence to the guidelines that ensure the proper procedures are being followed to adhere to the rules of evidence. If these rules are not grasped by the judge, jury, or legal representation, how can they be followed? The issue is not simply addressed by breaking it down to public defender vs. a paid advocate.

19

The price of fairness, however, is not monetary, it is adherence to the guidelines that ensure the proper procedures are being followed to adhere to the rules of evidence. If these rules are not grasped by the judge, jury, or legal representation, how can they be followed? The issue is not simply addressed by breaking it down to public defender vs. a paid advocate.

One of the questions is, “Do you consider substandard public defenders against seasoned lawyers fair [a fair trial]?”

Lawyers are not the only important factor in trials, of course…

But they are still important, and there are noticeable differences between the two in terms of sentencing. (I find this especially interesting because the severity of the crimes are also completely different.) This is why people are trying to find ways of making trails_more_ fair so that people who can’t afford their own lawyers can still get decent representation.

20

One of the questions is, “Do you consider substandard public defenders against seasoned lawyers fair [a fair trial]?”

I would consider a “sub-standard” public defender against a seasoned lawyer a fair trial, if and only if the trial adhered to an objective consideration of the relevant evidence available. There is a U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence available. I’ve read through an older revision of these rules many years ago. I do not consider myself adequately versed in this to critique them directly, but these are the guidelines which establish the minimum requirements. As I understand, the O.J. Simpson trial permitted many arbitrary speculations in as a tactic to cloud the clarity of the decision making process. Does this mean that a fair trial took place, or that seasoned lawyers are able to create enough confusion to generate a “reasonable” doubt? Your question is still one of “Is justice fairly and objectively adminsitered by the current process in place, or are verdicts purchased by monetary means rather than objective adherence to a rationally discovered process.”

21

Your question is still one of “Is justice fairly and objectively adminsitered by the current process in place, or are verdicts purchased by monetary means rather than objective adherence to a rationally discovered process.”

I’m not talking about purchasing verdicts at all. I’m just saying that lawyers are extremely important in trials because they’re the ones who represent their clients. How are they supposed to do a good job when they have multiple cases to handle, they don’t have enough time to spend with their clients, they have little (if any) monetary incentives to win, and they are over worked? Could these be some of the causes of the statistical discrepancies seen above? Yes. Does this need to be examined more closely and changed? I would think so.