> > It's a philosophical difference, and no more "indefensible" > > than the US system of "one law for the rich, one for the poor" > > which allows those with deep enough pockets to buy their way > > out of just about any situation. > > My understanding is the British law in this case is sort of in response > to an old U.S. Supreme Court decision that EVERY defendant should have > access to adequate legal counsel. > > The U.S. decision applied only to criminal cases, but the British > didn't > make that distinction when Parliament passed their law. And they > actually put some teeth in their law.
they did make a distinction. There are different rules and entitlements applying to criminal and civil law and different organisations dealing with each branch. <http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/default.asp> Any human system which tries to be just is subject to freeloaders, to people whose entitlement may seem unfair, and to people we just plain don't like such as wife-beaters, but that's part of the price of trying to be a just society. One that I personally don't mind paying provided there are reasonable efforts to identify and deter the few freeloaders. In addition to that, the rates paid to lawyers working under the scheme are fixed by parliament, so it doesn't matter how much the law firm may charge for private work. For legal aid work they get the same rate as everyone else. Having said that, plenty of lawyers have become millionaires from legal aid work, so they're not paying peanuts. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
