Comments (20) | Add a comment
EDITORIAL
Indigent defense
Tools
Updated: Apr. 10, 2012 | 10:06 a.m.
The Nevada Supreme Court has instructed Clark County District Court judges to start charging fees to defendants represented by the public defender's office or otherwise represented by lawyers paid by taxpayers -- on a sliding scale based on their ability to pay.
Charges will range from a minimum $250 if the case is resolved at the Justice Court level, to a maximum $750 if the case nears trial or goes to trial. The more work put into a case, the higher the fee.
The new fees go into effect Tuesday.
Nevada law addressing public defenders clearly states their clients will be represented "without charge." But another statute allows judges to assess fees based on a defendant's ability to pay, though judges rarely did so in the past.
Clark County Public Defender Phil Kohn said he wants to make sure a defendant's failure to pay the fees will never result in the imposition of a jail sentence or probation revocation. Doing so would be a violation of a defendant's guaranteed right to appointed counsel, Mr. Kohn said.
Nevada Supreme Court spokesman Bill Gang said people who are truly indigent might not be assessed the fee.
If this all seems rather odd, it's because the courts are trying to deal with a constitutional guarantee.
Former County Commissioner Mary Kincaid Chauncey famously presented herself to the courts as an "indigent" defendant when she went on trial on corruption charges, though no one had previously thought of her as a shopping-cart lady.
It's getting awfully pricey for taxpayers to fund the defense of a vast group of defendants who may indeed have some assets. But the courts are understandably reluctant to undertake determining the net worth of each defendant and what they can "afford to pay."
Is the way we now pay for legal "indigent defense" mererly a demonstration of where health care will be, a few years hence? Taxpayers who never get arrested pay for the defense of those who do -- defendants who pay no taxes at all, in most cases.
Similarly, it's now proposed that those who are young and healthy should pay for the "health care" of the elderly and the ill. So long as someone else pays, anything can be made to appear "free." But it never seems to work for long.
Trending topics:
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
"Taxpayers who never get arrested pay for the defense of those who do -- defendants who pay no taxes at all, in most cases."
So only people who pay taxes are entitled to their constitutional rights?
To: John F.,
I wrote "Wow that's a close one".
Per your 2nd paragraph. What you inferred is what started Social Security, AFTER THE DEPRESSION.
A safety net for older people. Of course throughout the years everything and everyone but the kitchen sink has been thrown in ...Social Security to Medicare to Medicaid to poor women with children to WIC to Food Stamps, free food at schools programs.
But, BLAME BOTH PARTIES before you deride me. Bush could have CLOSED all these programs. Bush had 8 yrs. Why?
Economics term: Bread and Butter. Total cost for all the above programs is 0.010 compared to the MILITARY COSTS...Bush yrs. = 1 Trillion. Obama, 1/2 trillion and counting!!!!
So, what do you want? choose
Social Programs contain a gazillion voters. That is your answer.
"Taxpayers who never get arrested pay for the defense of those who do -- defendants who pay no taxes at all, in most cases."
"Similarly, it's now proposed that those who are young and healthy should pay for the "health care" of the elderly and the ill. So long as someone else pays, anything can be made to appear "free.""
What kind of convoluted logic produced these statements?
They are messed up on so many levels it's insane.
First, the right to counsel is constitutionally protected. It doesn't matter how much it costs; we as citizens are obligated to pay for counsel for those who can't afford it. Didn't the writers of this editorial read Sherman Frederick's column today? You know, the one where he admonished us to "keep our nation, under God, a haven for unalienable human rights -- you know, all that uncomfortable stuff in that Constitution thingy."
Second, we already pay for the health care of the elderly. Haven't the editors heard of Medicare? We also pay for the health care of the indigent through Medicaid and SCHIP. The health care debate centers on whether we want to continue to allow the health insurance companies to continue to profit by providing insurance to the young and healthy while sticking the taxpayers with the bill for the health care of the elderly, the indigent, and the sick.
Yeesh!
Wow, this is a close one. U.S. Supreme Ct. Miranda vs. Az., as I recall from Constitutional Law Class.
"if you cannot afford one will be appointed to you". ONLY APPLIES AFTER the subject is ARRESTED
Protects ALL of us under the 6th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
So, before the person is "officially" arrested then there's no problem. It is when you deny a subject their "liberty" i..e..right to leave then comes the problem.
Cost is not supposed to be a factor to what I call "good counsel" i...e...someone with an actual Law Degree and Law License.
Could end up in the U. S. Supreme Court. THIS IS EXCITING!!!!
P. S. I am NOT a lawyer nor have I ever represented myself as such. This is my OPINION.