Pros And Cons Of A Court Appointed Attorney

The Miranda Rights work quite well as they were intended upon initial conception. They serve to inform, with great accuracy, the arrested individual of their rights and allow them to take the proper next course of action based on what they know. Even if they were not previously aware of their rights, the Miranda Rights serve to briefly and effectively enlighten the apprehended. However, a small, if important addendum is justifiable and perhaps necessary in that the nature of their rights as an arrested individual could be further specified. The right to a court appointed attorney is paramount to the civilized justice system. Despite this, the system is not without its faults. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons both proximate and remote, central and ideological, many court appointed attorneys are overwhelmed with cases. Some have as many as thousands and more still have hundreds of cases. Further more, many court appointed attorneys are amateurs, fresh out of law school with no formal practice of their own. To add further insult to injury, many are often so ill-equipped to handle their cases they opt for their clients to plead guilty and accept lesser sentencing rather than risk a long, arduous battle.

It can be argued that a prosecutor is far more seasoned than the rookies that take on the work of a court appointed attorney, so immediately from the start they are at a disadvantage. Combined with the sheer quantity of cases, many court appointed attorneys can only allocate minutes with their clients. One can assume this to be a substantial disadvantage when the maximum amount of time spent researching a case is less than that spent at a fast food