USA Today provided me with a very interesting editorial to ponder. The overview of this article is very simple. "Cash-strapped" states are deciding that they need to charge fees for public defender attorneys. A fee, that puts a damper on one of our Constitutional Amendments, a right a fair trial. "If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by law," and so on, we all know these words. The author also thinks that these state's divine plan to charge court and attorney fees will backfire, resulting in having to pay extra to house the convicted defendants in jail who cannot afford to pay their fees and that these states need to find other ways to pay for their court system. The claim and creditability of this editorial is real, especially for those who have endured some of those pain-staking fees.
From my opinion this editorial holds a biased commentary towards how the government is run, regardless of what our Constitutional rights as American citizens. It also depicts a certain audience's attention, one that already has issues with the government. Logically speaking this is a great way to help recover from the economic downfall, but is it really? The author makes for a great argument but fails to see the other side of the fence. As a taxpayer, I see nothing wrong with people having to pay for their attorneys. I believe that if they committed a crime and are convicted, then "yes" absolutely they should have to pay certain fees. If they are innocent, then "no" they should not have to pay. The fees that are being charged now will surely raise controversy.
No comments:
Post a Comment