Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

freedom.press

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 175 posts

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#31

Post by sambeau »

humanrebar wrote: post #21
andrelaszlo wrote: post #11

I find it very disturbing that you need tens of thousands of dollars at your disposal to get a "fair" trial. I say "fair", because the output obviously changes with the amount of money you feed the system. Too little money and the outcome will be biased against you, too much money and the outcome will be biased in the other direction. Which amount will give an unbiased output? $50k? $100k? How can this be considered…

> How can this be considered normal? It's not acceptable, but nobody has any better ideas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aid

A better idea is common throughout the world.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#32

Post by ekianjo »

bitJericho wrote: post #5
batou wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah well the lawyers in question will probably look like shit if they lose so they want money so it's not a complete loss. Horrible but probably true.

I don't know about you but I don't work for free, even for the noblest of causes, unless I can put food on the table (eg, the lawyers need to eat).

> (eg, the lawyers need to eat).

At the price they are working at, it's not about eating anymore, it's about being able to afford 3 houses, an apartment in New York, Cocaine every Friday and the Tesla or a BMW to complete the picture.

I have never seen a poor lawyer.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#33

Post by vdaniuk »

nicboobees wrote: post #27
vdaniuk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A person with $200 000 yearly income (a very conservative assumption for top lawyers) is in top %0.04 richest people by income.[0] Yeah, right, they have to "put food" on the table. [0] http://www.globalrichlist.com

Rich people don't just swim in money you know. It's fairly likely they'll have far more expenses than poor people. So they might have a better pension plan, pay a gardener. Might send their kids to private school. etc etc So someone earning $200k could well be less well off after expenses than someone earning $50k.

>So they might have a better pension plan, pay a gardener.

>So someone earning $200k could well be less well off after expenses than someone earning $50k.

Poe's law invoked.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#34

Post by analog31 »

bitJericho wrote: post #5
batou wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah well the lawyers in question will probably look like shit if they lose so they want money so it's not a complete loss. Horrible but probably true.

I don't know about you but I don't work for free, even for the noblest of causes, unless I can put food on the table (eg, the lawyers need to eat).

In my view, a side effect of our legal system is that it's a very generous public gift to lawyers. And there's probably a perverse incentive for lawyers to manipulate that system to make it more lucrative and exclusive (e.g., more complex, so that regular people can't take care of their own minor legal issues). As such, I see no problem with maintaining a more equitable distribution of legal support.

The ideal situation would be to establish a social norm, where successful pro bono defense work was a badge of honor. This work should include not only criminal defense, but also helping the poor deal with civil cases.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#35

Post by JoshTriplett »

Coding_Cat wrote: post #28
humanrebar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can this be considered normal? It's not acceptable, but nobody has any better ideas.

Socialized legal defense? Government funded legal defense, with a private choice of the law firm to reduce pro-government biasses. Similar to how certain socialized healthcare systems work. Of course, there are some glaring issues here, such as the fact that unfortunately there's a strong correlation between socio-economic status and the odds of you needing legal counsel... Something which also occurs in healthcare b…

In the US, you're already entitled to an attorney for your defense. That doesn't necessarily mean you'll get a good attorney.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#37

Post by roghummal »

andrelaszlo wrote: post #11

I find it very disturbing that you need tens of thousands of dollars at your disposal to get a "fair" trial. I say "fair", because the output obviously changes with the amount of money you feed the system. Too little money and the outcome will be biased against you, too much money and the outcome will be biased in the other direction. Which amount will give an unbiased output? $50k? $100k? How can this be considered…

Only tens of thousands?

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#38

Post by Shivetya »

Coding_Cat wrote: post #28
humanrebar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can this be considered normal? It's not acceptable, but nobody has any better ideas.

Socialized legal defense? Government funded legal defense, with a private choice of the law firm to reduce pro-government biasses. Similar to how certain socialized healthcare systems work. Of course, there are some glaring issues here, such as the fact that unfortunately there's a strong correlation between socio-economic status and the odds of you needing legal counsel... Something which also occurs in healthcare b…

You are provided counsel when defending yourself if you cannot afford it. It is when you lose and do not accept a court's verdict. Even plead guilty to a good number of the charges and was given a sentence lower than requested by the prosecution.

there is a reason why non automatic appeals are not free, else those convicted could simply keep their cases open at cost to the tax payer when guilt had been properly assessed.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#39

Post by icelancer »

ekianjo wrote: post #32
bitJericho wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about you but I don't work for free, even for the noblest of causes, unless I can put food on the table (eg, the lawyers need to eat).

> (eg, the lawyers need to eat). At the price they are working at, it's not about eating anymore, it's about being able to afford 3 houses, an apartment in New York, Cocaine every Friday and the Tesla or a BMW to complete the picture. I have never seen a poor lawyer.

My friend is a criminal defense attorney for those who are usually unable to pay market rates. He's making a lot less than I was as a senior developer and not much more when I was a junior developer. Factor in law school loans and time spent in the books and he's not exactly rolling in cash.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#40

Post by DasIch »

Coding_Cat wrote: post #28
humanrebar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can this be considered normal? It's not acceptable, but nobody has any better ideas.

Socialized legal defense? Government funded legal defense, with a private choice of the law firm to reduce pro-government biasses. Similar to how certain socialized healthcare systems work. Of course, there are some glaring issues here, such as the fact that unfortunately there's a strong correlation between socio-economic status and the odds of you needing legal counsel... Something which also occurs in healthcare b…

That's not an issue at all, if the government just acts as a lender to whoever is going to lose.

That also has the added bonus of making people think twice about engaging people in civil suits and prevents people and bad prosecutors from using the legal system for blackmail.

Post reply on HN