Re: [dvd-discuss] The Checks and Ballances are in the mail

[Jeme A Brelin <jeme(at)brelin.net>]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Jim Bauer wrote:
> Ignore any right to a speedy trial for a moment.  What about a right
> to afford a defense?  If someone like the MPAA sued me, I would have
> no possiblity of defending myself unless a lot of sympathic people
> sent in donations.  It would seem that justice belongs only to those
> with the most money.

Certainly this has become a real problem.  I can't really address it at
the moment.

> In a criminal case, I would at leat have the right to a free bargain
> basement defence by a public defender

I wouldn't call public defenders "bargain basement".  There are some good
people there and to claim that they aren't good just because they're not
going after the big money is to justify the very aspect of the system you
condemn.

> who incedently is working for the same government that would be
> prosecuting me.  Can you say conflict of interest?

Here I TOTALLY disagree with you.  I was recently on jury duty and the
prosecutor asked the prospective jurors the following question:  What
would it mean for the state to lose this case?

Here is how I replied:
The state loses if justice is not served.  If a guilty man goes unpunished
or an innocent man is imprisoned or fined, the state loses.

The judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney (a public defender, by the
way) all smiled and nodded along.  I was actually thanked by the
prosecutor in the hall later (I wasn't on the final jury simply due to my
placement on the roster).

The government doesn't get bonus points for putting more people behind
bars (though some counties around here are doing their damnedest to reap
fines to cover county expenses... this MUST be stopped but can only be
done through adequate taxation).  The prison-industrial complex is strong,
but I don't think it has any influence at the trial level.

> Back to the civil cases.  A while back I though of a way to pay for
> the defense of the little guy.  If really-big-guy sues little-guy,
> they really-big-guy must provide X% of the money they spend on the
> suit to the defendent for their defense. The exact percentage would be
> dependent on how big the big-guy is and how little the little-guy is.

The problem here is defining who's big enough and who's little enough and
how to stamp out that ratio.

For better or worse, this country works more on the concept of equality
than equity.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme@brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org