On a late night in a suburban town, a young woman drives her car home and falls asleep at the wheel. A nocturnal jogger wearing headphones, unaware of the vehicle quickly approaching, is struck down by the driver and passes away from his injuries. The driver is arrested and eventually goes to trial. Depending on the ability and experience of the driver's legal team, the young woman has the potential to do time in prison under charges of involuntary manslaughter. Luckily for the driver, her family owns a very successful restaurant in the town, and has the money to afford the best legal defenders the state has to offer. The ruling went in favor of the young woman, and she was acquitted of all charges. Had she not had the financial means to hire her prominent attorneys, she would have likely been convicted and sentenced to a significant prison term. This is the sad reality of the justice system. The more money one has the more justice one will receive. As a pre-law/media major and legal assistant, I have examined cases similar to this scenario both in my academic studies and in my work environment. I have often wondered if there could be a solution to the injustice that plagues this country's legal system and its bias against the poor. Despite the happy-ending storylines of the courtroom dramas on television, the reality is that the legal system favors those who can afford to use it to the best of their advantage.
On television, there are a number of crime-fighting, legal dramas that often misrepresent a citizen's right to legal counsel, zealous lawyers, and the equality of the justice system; good guys always win, bad guys always lose, and cases get resolved within a neat and entertaining 55-minute package. However, contrary to popular belief, legal representation is not always available to those who seek it, especially for those needing help at an affordable price. Despite the infamous "Miranda Rights" in which upon arrest an officer will inform the suspect that he/she has the right to have an attorney, this does not apply for non-criminal issues involving civil and domestic matters. According to a national survey conducted to determine the average citizen's knowledge of his or her constitutional rights, results revealed that 79% of the those surveyed believe that the lower classes of society have a constitutional right to free counsel for civil cases, as well as criminal cases (Eveleth, 2001). As a legal assistant, I know from experience that many law offices will agree to meet with a client on a free or reduced rate basis for the first initial meeting only. However, this is done in a way to lure in the client who is most likely ill-prepared to discuss his/her legal issues. The client will appear for the first meeting without a prepared summary of the events that occurred and without copies of any relevant documents pertaining to the case. Therefore, the first 'free' appointment will not actually solve any issues for which the client seeks assistance because once the client knows what to bring to the next appointment, then the legal advice can commence, as well as the lawyer's hourly rate. The tight-budgeted client will be less likely to appear for any future appointments for which he/she wont be able to afford the legal services, and will be left to deal with the issue without the aid of legal advice.
It seems obvious that when given the choice to have legal representation when confronted with a civil or criminal issue, it is always more beneficial to have someone who has been trained and certified to interpret the laws of a given jurisdiction. However, a study done in the state of Washington found that "88% of the state's needy faced legal problems without a lawyer," implying that this was due to financial reasons (McGann, 2004). The majority of people with unmet civil legal needs are often women with children, minorities, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Unfortunately, highly skilled legal services are very expensive. While access to legal services is determined by the potential-client's ability to pay, many people just can't afford a lawyer for advice or representation. For those who can, the more money one can afford to pay, the better the services one can obtain. "The system provides the wealthy a good deal more 'justice' than it does the middle class and the poor" (Goldman; Haskell 41). This is often seen when legal trouble affects those in the entertainment spotlight.
Beyond television courtroom dramas, the news media have helped to highlight the flaws in the legal system. Sensationalized trials, like the Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson, and OJ Simpson cases, have been settled in the defendants' favor simply because they each could afford to hire the best legal teams that could convince the jury in the defendants' favors. If the defendants in these cases had not been wealthy public figures, then each defendant would have been sentenced according to their convictions as a rapist, a child molester, and a murderer, respectively. For those in which money is not an issue, good legal representation can foil the justice system, which ultimately favors the rich over the poor.
In addition to the hardships of a lower class lifestyle, the justice system is tailored against those who need legal services more for desperate situations. Society is prejudice towards those who are not clean-cut, who are mentally unstable, or are not successful-looking. In this case, law enforcement authorities are more likely to harass those who fit this description. In addition, those with money are more capable to write or lobby state legislators for the laws that govern society. Their money goes towards laws that will ultimately be in their class' favor. Furthermore, judges are more "reluctant to make common criminals out of the community's best and finest" (Fleetwood et. al 26). A softer sentence, or even a warning, will be given to those who don't fit the stereotypical description of a criminal. "For example, millionaire Jack Clark received no fine and only one year in jail for cheating stockholders out of $200 million. Yet in the same courthouse, a minimum wage worker who had stolen $5,000 received four years in prison -- that is, 160,000 times the punishment" (Fleetwood et al. 29). These inequalities have plagued the justice system. The disparities between the rich and the poor are often overlooked when it comes to both sentencing and parole. The following is a table showing the average sentences and paroles for different classes of crime:
Average Average time
sentence served
(months) (months)
----------------------------------------------------
Crimes of the poor:
Robbery 128.5 46.5
Larceny/theft 36.9 18.3
Burglary 35.6 17.9
Crimes of the rich:
Fraud 27.8 13.6
Embezzlement 23.8 11.4
Income tax evasion 18.3 10.3
(Federal Bureau of Prisons, Statistical Report, Fiscal Year 1986)
If the poor had access to proper legal representation, then perhaps there wouldn't be an overwhelming majority of them occupying the nation's prisons. The Honorable Earl Johnson, Jr. who serves on California's Court of Appeals, claims that "Despite our nation's promise of equal justice for all, lawyer services are among the most unequally distributed resources in American society" (Eveleth, 2001). As government expenditures on civil legal services represent less than a half a percent of the estimated $150 billion dollars America spends on lawyers each year, most of it is spent on civil rather than criminal representation (Eveleth, 2001). So what's the solution?
If there were more access to legal services, making it available to all classes and not specifically favorable towards the rich, then the inequalities of the justice system would be less apparent. More access would be possible through government funding of legal advocacy groups, rather than the current majority of private practice law offices. Since lawyers are proponents of local, state, and federal laws then they should be paid a salary just as other law-related government workers, such as police officers, judges, and district attorneys. The public pays for the salaries of these services through taxes, and it seems that lawyers are one of the only governmental professions that have remained private. Since there are fewer lawyers available to represent or advise the types of legal issues most commonly affecting the poor, then they are more likely to charge high hourly rates. Equal legal representation could only occur if lawyers were included in the public sector of society. Judge Johnson believes that if there were more lawyers, then it would "give all poor people what the European Court of Human Rights called 'effective access to justice'" (Eveleth, 2001). As a legal assistant, I have experienced the best example of effective access to justice through my work at Oregon State University's ASOSU Law Office.
Since the law office I work for is funded through incidental fees charged to all students of the University, the attorneys make no profit from the individual clients who would have otherwise spent thousands of dollars seeking legal counsel elsewhere. As a service to the students, the office provides advice on legal matters concerning civil and criminal issues, such as car accidents, personal injury, insurance, credit/debt, landlord/tenant, wills, divorces, and child support, just to name a few. The attorneys are able to provide the same level of service to every client regardless of what social class he/she is in. Unfortunately, the attorneys do not provide courtroom representation services through litigation, but do assist the clients on preparing a trial script so that he/she can execute the case independently. Also, since the office is a service provided to all students, the attorneys are unable to see a client who is in dispute with another university student. This may be hard for someone who is in a legal bind, but it prevents a conflict of interest on behalf of the office, which ensures the most effective access to justice.
Perhaps the driver who struck the jogger was one of the clients of The Maids services in Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed." It is highly likely that she would be able to afford a legal team that would convince the jury to acquit her of the charges. On the other hand, if the driver was one of the house cleaners for The Maids, she would not be able to afford an attorney who would to properly defend her, and she would get sent to prison despite the results of her unintentional act. In this case, people of poorer classes do not get as good legal representation as opposed to the owners of the houses they are paid to clean. "For the same criminal behavior, the poor are more likely to be arrested; if arrested, they are more likely to be charged; if charged, more likely to be convicted; if convicted, more likely to be sentenced to prison; and if sentenced, more likely to be given longer prison terms than members of the middle and upper classes" (Reiman 81). Unless legal representation is funded through an unending resource, such as the government for other federal workers, then, to the detriment of those most in need, the justice system will never truly be blind, equal, or just.
Bibliography
Eveleth, Janet. "Equal Access to Justice." Maryland State Bar Association Inc, October 10, 2001. <http://www.msba.org>
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Statistical Report, Fiscal Year. 1986.
Haskell, Paul G. Why Lawyers Behave As They Do. Oxford: Westview Press, 1998: 41.
Fleetwood, Blake, and Arthur Lubow. "America's Most Coddled Criminals." New Times Magazine. September 19 1975: 26-29.
Goldman, Alan H. The Moral Foundations of Professional Ethics 123. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1980.
Haskell, Paul G. Why Lawyers Behave As They Do. Oxford: Westview Press, 1998.
McGann, Chris. "For poor, justice can be unequal." Seattle Post-Intelligencer Reporter. October 14, 2004.
Reiman, Jeffrey . The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1990.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 3
Legal representation is not the only area in which the rich tend to come out on top, however. The poor seem to be set up to fail in many ways. Read more of Barbara Ehrenreich's work for details. I think a great part of the problem is the preconceived stereotype of "the poor" that the advantaged conveniently maintain amongst themselves. Most of the privileged have absolutely no idea how anyone unlike our/themselves live and struggle.
When our president admitted, "The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway..." in Annandale, Virginia on August 9, 2004, he affirmed the great divide between rich and poor.
I agree with Diana that society has taken on a number of convenient attitudes about crime and the justice system. I notice a lot of my affluent friends feeling that when someone is arrested they "must" be guilty. Yet my poorer collegues make the assumption that the arrested party is being railroaded.
Another class distinction that contributes to the problem I believe is that many police are in the habit of increasing the liklihood of conviction for their arrests by manufacturing evidence. I realize thsi may be argumentative and I lack the logical documented approach that Sara has taken, but I firmly believe that this occurs particularly when police know that the potential perp will not have the resources to contradict their evidence.
Recently there has been a number of overturned murder convictions resulting from DNA evidence. These convicted felons all are poor and had seemlinly airtight cases - witnesses, figerprints, and the like - yet with the emergence of DNA it's being discoved that their DNA does not match crime scene evidence. In theory under our justice system - beyond a reasonable doubt - the incidence of innocent people being convicted should be much less.
..
Uwishing you laughter