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

41–50 of 175 posts

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#41

Post by higherpurpose »

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.

What's causing the prices to be so high? Is it the complexity of U.S. law? Would it help if you had 5 pages laws instead of 500 pages laws, or would that make things worse? (more room for loopholes) I'm inclined to believe simpler laws would help, though, because a lawyer wouldn't have to know tens of thousands of pages of laws by heart (or close to it), or at least wouldn't have to research tens of thousands of pages.

Would having to pay if you lose help, too? I imagine there would be fewer lawsuits then. I don't have any data to back it up, but it feels like the U.S. has the most lawsuits/capita. Other countries where you have to pay if you lose don't have that many.

Anyway, it definitely doesn't feel fair that you need hundreds of thousands of dollars for a good defense. That's why most people tend to take the plea deal even if they are not guilty of the charges they bring, or if they are "guilty" but only through some twisted interpretations of the law and the prosecutors, which could be invalidated in a Court, but they can't risk it (especially when the prosecutors tend to charge them with 10 different offenses and 30 years in prison for the least violent of crimes just to scare them into taking the 6 months in prison plea deal).

The U.S. prosecutors seem to be acting exactly like patent trolls - or the mafia: "We won't take you to Court if you just pay this small sum - or go to prison for this small amount of time."

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#43

Post by DasIch »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #35
Coding_Cat wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's why you should be able to chose the court appointed attorney within reason.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#44

Post by bhickey »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #35
Coding_Cat wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Gideon v. Wainwright established that indigent defendants are entitled to free legal representation. There's no such right for non-indigent defendants.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#45

Post by netheril96 »

higherpurpose wrote: post #41
humanrebar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What's causing the prices to be so high? Is it the complexity of U.S. law? Would it help if you had 5 pages laws instead of 500 pages laws, or would that make things worse? (more room for loopholes) I'm inclined to believe simpler laws would help, though, because a lawyer wouldn't have to know tens of thousands of pages of laws by heart (or close to it), or at least wouldn't have to research tens of thousands of page…

From my limited understanding, the US has rather simple statutory laws. In other words, the legislature only promulgates 5 pages of law. But given that reality is complex, these laws cannot cover all the cases. So the judicial branch makes certain decisions themselves, and these decisions become binding to later and lower courts (a.k.a precedents). These precedent based laws are very complicated and amount to 500 pages.

So, I guess your idea won't work. Either the legislature thinks up front and publishes 500 pages, or the courts have to fill in the blanks between page 5 and page 500 themselves.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#46

Post by olalonde »

sambeau wrote: post #31
humanrebar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That article says the US has legal aid...

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#47

Post by ekianjo »

icelancer wrote: post #39
ekianjo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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.

> criminal defense attorney for those who are usually unable to pay market rates

So obviously he is not the typical lawyer.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#48

Post by imron »

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

less disposable income != less well off

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#49

Post by nicboobees »

JupiterMoon wrote: post #30
nicboobees wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except that their kids have better chances in life, their retirement is secure, they have a nice garden to relax in etc etc... Money well spent if you ask me.

I agree. I'm just saying that just because someone is a lawyer, and has a reasonably high salary, doesn't necessarily follow that they're swimming in money.

Re: Donate to Chelsea Manning's Legal Defense

#50

Post by rayiner »

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…

Your point is well-taken in the abstract, but I don't think it applies here. This is one of those cases where the defense must make the case complicated, because otherwise they lose.

There is no dispute that Manning actually did most of the things she is accused of doing. I don't think she's contending that it was someone else who leaked those classified materials. The defense is in a position of arguing that, despite those things, for various reasons Manning should nonetheless be found not guilty, or at least her sentence should be reduced. They will try to make the case not about straightforward factual events, but about Manning's intentions and motivations, the nature of the information involved, the impact of the disclosures, the broader social and political implications of finding her guilty, etc.

A straightforward legal procedure would certainly be cheaper. It'd also be one that would find Manning guilty without even considering the mitigating factors she's relying on for her defense.

Post reply on HN