Print

Print


Ken,

I agree that this seems to be the prevailing opinion, and that I too would
think twice before accepting an attorney afforded by the State, but this
hardly seems the sort of thing one would use to prove discriminatory
punishment --  that prosecutors seem better than State-appointed defense
attorneys.

Justin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Armstrong" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: OT: RE: The Waste Land


> Justin,
>
> Just a brief point:
>
> At 10:55 PM 06/12/2001 -0500, Justin wrote:
> Justin,
>
> Just onee small point:
>
> --On Tuesday, June 12, 2001 10:55 PM -0500 J Blessinger
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>   I don't understand how
>  > state appointed defense attorneys are incompetent yet well-meaning
>  > buffoons while the state-appointed prosecution attorneys are quite
>  > competent.  If you were discussing a civil suit, as in the latter one
>  > brought against one O.J. Simpson this would be another matter, of
> course.
>
>    Prosecutors are elected and run on their records. I've never voted
> for a public defender; they're not on the ballot. Don't you get the idea
> that in general prosecutors are upward bound in their careers, while
> public defenders are more often (not always) not? The latter seem to be
> the least  well remunerated of attorneys, which all points to some likely
> disparity in talent between the two camps.
>
>   Ken Armstrong
>
>