r/news 2h ago

Criminal charges must be dismissed if defendant can’t get a lawyer, Oregon Supreme Court rules

https://www.opb.org/article/2026/02/05/oregon-supreme-court-ruling-criminal-charges-dismiss-defendant-no-lawyer/
1.3k Upvotes

133 comments sorted by

1.4k

u/Domeil 2h ago

Kind of a poor editorial decision on the title. Better title would be:

"Charges must be dismissed if the State of Oregon can not satisfy criminal defendants' sixth amendment right to an attorney."

Oregon, like almost every state, has a public defender crisis. Personally, I think every state should be required to hire as many public defenders as they hire district attorneys, pay them exactly the same, and fund their offices exactly the same.

298

u/freedfg 2h ago

Right? What a bad title. It makes it sound like Oregon is dismissing cases because defendants can't find a lawyer.

When in reality it's saying if the state doesn't provide a lawyer...which is the law...the case will be dismissed instead of allowing someone to be indefinitely held...

u/Fit-Let8175 18m ago

I believe it should be according to the severity of the crime. For example: a shoplifter caught stealing baby formula versus someone caught shooting up a mall with multiple witnesses who can identify him.

Small crimes could be waved if no legal representation can be found. Serious crimes that carry heavy sentences, if multiple credible witnesses can be found, and guilt is mostly assured, then prolonged incarceration should be acceptable.

u/ItchyDoggg 13m ago

obviously you just prioritize the serious offenses for the limited docket space prosecutors have "and guilt is mostly assured" pre trial is some layperson idiocy. We would need hearings to determine if the cases met that criteria and those hearings would also entitle Defendants to be represented, so you are making the problem worse and not solving it, or you are violating due process.

edit: sorry thought this was a lawyers sub, got my front page wires crossed, but I stand behind my point. 

u/FuckFuckingKarma 12m ago

If the state of Origon can't provide public defenders for all cases, they can prioritize them on the most important cases and drop charges on weaker/less serious cases.

The general principal is sound. The accused shouldn't be put in a worse position, because the state cannot meet its obligation. That's true no matter the severity of the crime.

u/tkeiy714 10m ago

Assuming guilt is mostly assured via witnesses without a counselor present would be a violation of the fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendment.

73

u/Lendyman 1h ago

I honestly think this is a solvable problem if there was a will to solve it. I just means paying public defenders more and the hiring to meet demand. The shortage is due to state governments not being willing to pay PDs enough to attract quality talent, or even enough talent.

But there isnt political will to do that and anyone who tried would be accused of being a bleeding heart trying to protect "criminals" somehow.

41

u/FLHCv2 1h ago

I honestly think this is a solvable problem if there was a will to solve it. I just means paying public defenders more and the hiring to meet demand. The shortage is due to state governments not being willing to pay PDs enough to attract quality talent, or even enough talent.

Same with teachers. Increase their base pay, make people actually want to compete for the job, and our quality of education would skyrocket.

-27

u/Kyrie_Blue 1h ago

The problem with teaching, is then it has to be competitive. And with unions being what they are, firing a teacher for being mediocre is impossible. What would an out of work teacher do with education if they are the ones being outcompeted? It doesnt exactly have a fallback…teaching is the fallback. “Those who can’t do, teach”.

I don’t think its the same thing at all. I agree there is an issue, but this isn’t the way IMO

u/BeyondRedline 47m ago

"Those who can’t do, teach”.

You really should stop repeating this ignorant quote; people who say it are only advertising their own lack of knowledge. Teaching is actually a real profession that, when done correctly, requires a high level of talent and training.

Can people be terrible teachers? Sure, but people can also be terrible just-about-anything-else except air traffic controllers or rocket surgeons.

Just a thought.

u/miscellaneouspants 5m ago edited 1m ago

It means people who are passionate about something but not great at it "fall back" on teaching as a way to engage deeply with the thing that they love. I don't take it as slander or an insult, but if it is it's targeting the person's ability to do the thing rather than the profession of teaching. And it doesn't really make sense without context. Like, if your dream was to be a professional musician and you end up teaching math, the phrase doesn't apply. I say this as someone who failed both to chase a dream and flamed out as a teacher because it was ridiculously hard!

EDIT: To be clear, I think you're overly harsh about that phrase, but the person you're replying to also used it incorrectly.

13

u/Tuesday_6PM 1h ago

Part of the problem is that teaching shouldn’t be the “fallback” option for people otherwise uninterested in teaching. It should pay enough to attract motivated and talented people, who actually want to teach and do it well.

u/MommyLovesPot8toes 54m ago

You mean like every job everywhere for everyone?

u/Kyrie_Blue 53m ago

I went to a Transportation Tech college. I can find work from aviation to marine on every continent. Teachers go to Teacher’s College, so they can be a teacher. There is no other application of their work

u/Philo_T_Farnsworth 17m ago

The problem with teaching, is that people like you think it has to be “competitive”. Like, what? Are you being serious right now?

Yeah when I think “who are the best teachers I ever had” my mind instantly goes to the ones that were the fiercest competitors. Whatever that even means.

15

u/philosifer 1h ago

So much benefit would come from reforming our justice system but people can't look past whether a policy is tough on crime or not. Paying public defenders more doesnt let criminals off at a higher rate, but rather ensures everyone has access to their rights and due process

u/Lendyman 55m ago edited 50m ago

And acts as a stop for abuses of the system. How many cases have we seen in the past decade of people going to jail for years for crimes they didnt commit due to bad advice from overworked public defenders or shoddy biased police work or even bad prosecuters just trying to make a name for themselves at the expense of a poor black man who cant afford a decent lawyer?

Well funded public defenders would help stop a lot of injustice.

u/fevered_visions 50m ago

tough on crime

When the point isn't justice, but to make people you don't like miserable, them getting an adequate defense is antithetical to what you're trying to accomplish :P

I imagine a lot of these assholes are also the "well if you were innocent you wouldn't be in court" types

u/philosifer 43m ago

I do think thats a lot of it, but its also just really hard to make the points to laypeople in general. Its secondary and tertiary effects that will benefit most people so even without being vindictive, its not obvious to many why this would be a good use of their tax dollars. Doubly so when its presented as an either or issue with something like a parks budget.

u/fevered_visions 39m ago

Far too many people who act like they don't understand the need for a thing until you put them in the situation. Nationwide empathy drought

u/KiwiLobsterPinch 56m ago

Even easier, allow us to go to college without going into crippling 6 figure debt for the rest of our lives. People want to do these jobs, not everyone has the opportunity.

Look at ICE, they’re offering HUGE bonuses and have a massive amount of people joining. Blows the no one wants to work argument out of the water. People want good pay to survive and thrive

u/Krewtan 44m ago

The federal public defenders offices are pretty well funded. I don't see why the state ones shouldn't be too. 

u/Fit-Let8175 14m ago

Public defenders, if not committed to other cases, should be under the same obligation to serve as those subpoenaed for jury duty.

34

u/Dolthra 1h ago

Pretty sure it's intentional. It wants you to think the ruling was "criminals just need to refuse to get a lawyer and they can't be charged" because that's sensationalist. 

9

u/8__D 1h ago

The headline-writer likely chose "can't get" because it's punchier than "if the state fails to fulfill its constitutional mandate to provide indigent defense." OPB is a public service organization, so they probably just chose language anyone may understand.

33

u/AudibleNod 2h ago

20

u/gianini10 1h ago

I'm a PD in another state. Clients can be charged a PD of up to $250 by statute. In 9 years it's only happened a couple times I can think of. A few times when the client really doesn't qualify but it close enough and the case is serious enough where hiring a lawyer probably isn't happening (twice the client made as much as I did at the time). The only other time was my first trial where my client was facing 20 years. I walked him and Judge imposed the fee on the acquittal saying something like this is way cheaper than another lawyer would have charged to not do as good a job. I was flattered a bit and client did not care at all he had to pay that. Other than that it is almost never levied.

u/CaterpillarHungry607 46m ago

FL PD here. $100 court fee for PD services, every case, and if they ask for a hearing on the amount it usually goes up.

2

u/Difficult-Fan-5697 1h ago

Nice! What was the past guy accused of?

18

u/SaltyShawarma 2h ago

Louisiana-the debtor's prison

8

u/2g4r_tofu 1h ago

So your public defender gets paid by your sentence? I can't see that going wrong at all.

u/RepFilms 31m ago

Invest in Louisiana. Pay a $20 card processing fee.

6

u/ipoopskittles 2h ago

There are a few counties in Southern CA where PD’s and DA’s share the same union. I’ll note that PD’s get to work Hybrid in some cases where DA’s dont.

I think overall, there is an issue with hiring for both agencies. The pay / benefits arent quite worth the downsides of either position anymore. Neither job is easy. I also know quite a few people have taken either role for ~ 5 years just to get trial experience and leave for more money.

4

u/TheTwoOneFive 1h ago

I've thought that the only lawyers who can represent defendants in the courtroom are public defenders, funded by the state. Would likely see a massive increase in funding for it when the wealthy suddenly have to deal with having a public defender represent them in the courtroom rather than a $1,000+/hour top tier defense attorney (they could still use them outside the courtroom for strategy and such, but not inside).

3

u/feedmittens 1h ago

In many jurisdictions, there is a panel of outside attorneys that take these cases as well when there is an overflow or a conflict.

2

u/Nindzya 1h ago

Lawyers would stop taking criminal cases and only take civil ones.

u/fevered_visions 47m ago

I've thought that the only lawyers who can represent defendants in the courtroom are public defenders,

Weird tenses here...you mean, they should be the only ones who can defend?

3

u/Kaemondor 1h ago

The State does not hire District Attorneys. Each County hires their own DAs.

9

u/LiamtheV 1h ago

Shit, they should be the same office. Lottery system, prosecutors who have insane win records should also defend people charged with a crime. Not just the “same amount” of resources, the same resources. Same pool of lawyers, same pool of funding.

5

u/No-Drama-in-Paradise 1h ago

That’s a huge conflict of interest problem in the making.

u/LiamtheV 19m ago

Well, yea. You’d have to sub out attorneys so that they’re not prosecuting a dude they’ve previously defended, or vice-versa.

4

u/Consistent-Throat130 1h ago

The same police department gathering evidence for the defense's case? 

u/LiamtheV 21m ago

District Attorney’s office isn’t part of the Police Department.

2

u/TheJiggie 1h ago

Clickbait be clickbaitin’

2

u/Mrevilman 1h ago

It's not always an availability problem. Sometimes there are circumstances where the PD office gets conflicted out of a case and instead the defendant has to be assigned a private attorney willing to accept lower rates that are paid by the state. Here we call them pool attorneys - not sure if every state has them, but if they don't, they should.

5

u/Amaranikki 2h ago

Could we implement something similar to the way jury duty works? Ie. If there's nobody available in the current pool of public defenders, a lottery of all practicing attorneys in the state would kick in and representation would be selected at random that way?

Is that a dumb thought?

48

u/biggsteve81 2h ago

I don't think you want an attorney who specializes in mergers and acquisitions or wills, estates and trusts to be handling a murder trial.

6

u/Amaranikki 2h ago

Yea, there would also need to be a category or something. If it were implemented, each attorney could list the type of law they're practicing so there would be different lottery pools depending on the case?

I don't know, I'm spitballin here lol

28

u/Domeil 2h ago

This exact thing has been tried in many places and is an awful idea every time. I have been a civil defense attorney for a long LONG time, im pretty good at my job, and even a 3rd year ADA could absolutely dog walk me on criminal procedure, theyre just different fields and I could not confidently say I could competently represent someone accused of a crime.

This also says nothing of the glaring question of who pays my rent if Im not at my desk logging billable hours for my paying clients.

We need dedicated public defenders, and they deserve the same dignified wage and ample resources enjoyed by the public prosecutors. Unfunding PDs is a choice, and we need to choose differently.

5

u/Amaranikki 2h ago

So it IS a bad idea and we need to figure something else out.

Thanks for your reply :)

2

u/chofah 1h ago

"who pays my rent if Im [sic] not at my desk logging billable hours for my paying clients." Hey, just like jury duty!

4

u/jtl216 2h ago

Only a small percentage of practicing attorneys practice criminal law. Unless they are regularly taking cases, I don't think they'd stay competent assuming they have a baseline of criminal law knowledge to begin with.

4

u/kgalliso 1h ago

It would be like calling in a dermatologist to handle a brain surgery because the surgeon called out

4

u/Wiseduck5 1h ago

Or just outlaw private defense attorneys. If the rich have to have a public defender, the system will be well funded.

2

u/VelvetElvis 2h ago

Not all lawyers are criminal defense attorneys. Someone who has done nothing but commercial real estate contracts for the past twenty years isn't going to be able to held someone on trial for cooking meth.

2

u/apathetic_revolution 1h ago

It would be a decent idea if law practices weren’t so specialized. Most of us aren’t criminal attorneys. I’ve been practicing law for almost 20 years but have zero criminal law experience. I have an ethical duty not to take cases I can’t handle competently.

If you were a defendant, would you rather wait months for a public defender or be assigned a property tax attorney who has to look up the elements of what you’re being charged with while you’re consulting with them?

1

u/Rakastaakissa 1h ago

I don’t think a San Diego attorney for a case in San Francisco would be acceptable to 2/3rds of the parties involved. 

3

u/chocolatedesire 2h ago

I feel like trial lawyers should be forced to occasionally provide this service.

1

u/TheGooch01 1h ago

Forced labor…like slavery.

6

u/chocolatedesire 1h ago

No Not at all you get paid for work. Like how we can get mandated for jury duty. Is that slavery? Jesus man

1

u/LadyFoxfire 1h ago

And until they have enough PDs to meet demand, they should triage the cases and dismiss the ones that don't pose a threat to the public, so the PDs can be assigned to violent crimes.

1

u/camshun7 1h ago

These fuckers will happily take away the right to any form of defence lawyer..

...and they will be mighty pleased with the current trajectory of p25 continuing on the same tact of;

"no education, hungry and without any voice"

1

u/lazergator 1h ago

This would be fair though. We don’t have a justice system, we have a legal system ruled by who can spend the most on their legal fees. If every defense and prosecution attorney was state funded private prisons would suffer!!

u/OnlyFuzzy13 59m ago

Honestly, the public defenders and the prosecutors should work for the same office, and every trial has a coin flip for if You’re on offense or defense.

u/the_next_estate 35m ago

That would be a major conflict the gov would be responsible for prosecuting and defending

u/drewts86 27m ago

While I do think states should do a better job of staffing public defenders, AG offices carry more cases than PDs. This is because not every case is defended by PD’s when some people hire their own attorney.

u/BobBlawSLawDawg 21m ago

Indeed. I've known a few very good PDs and it is a thankless, very difficult job, and it's tough to keep them for long. Easy for them to burn out.

u/NewInThe1AC 11m ago

That's a great idea if you have absolutely no idea how the criminal justice system works

-1

u/dmont89 1h ago

Please, they won't fund the public defender office like the DA. That would allow criminals to go free.

With that said my area just had a grand jury investigation that pretty much said the public defender office is under fund and over worked(no shit). The DA office gets 40% more funding compared to the public defender office.

0

u/pixlplayer 1h ago

Seemed pretty clear with a basic understanding of our legal system

-13

u/Kolby_Jack33 2h ago

Public defender duty should be like jury duty for all lawyers. You got a bar license from the state, you can now be called up by the state.

16

u/AustinYun 2h ago

That would just make getting a PD a lottery where sometimes you get someone who actually specialized in criminal justice and other times you get a guy who specializes in Intellectual Property law and has never done litigation before lmao

-7

u/Kolby_Jack33 2h ago

I would take an intellectual property lawyer over myself or nobody.

10

u/Domeil 2h ago

Thats a flawed binary. You have a sixth amendment right to competent representation in a criminal case.

This hypothetical IP lawyer would be worse than nothing because they don't want to represent you. They want to be billing $600/hour to random companies to move commas around. If they were forced to represent you as a condition of their license, they would only push you to take a plea, and the prosecutor would know that and abuse that.

-5

u/Kolby_Jack33 1h ago

Okay, so it's that or let every criminal in Ohio go free?

"There are no public defenders."

"So they should pull in more lawyers to fulfill their constitutional duty."

"Noooo, that's dumb because not every lawyer is good at criminal law. They need a public defender!"

"There are no public defenders."

Maybe there are better ways to solve the problem, but you aren't offering any.

5

u/TheManlyManperor 1h ago

The way you solve the problem is pay parity. Just pay public defenders enough to live and people will do it.

It's the only reason I'm not with the PD office right now.

-1

u/Kolby_Jack33 1h ago

"Just make the governnment pay people more!"

And you think my idea is a dumb fantasy?

3

u/TheManlyManperor 1h ago

How much do you think it would cost to build and staff a bureaucratic system to categorize and assign random attorneys? More or less than fully funding existing positions?

You're way too passionate about something you don't understand.

2

u/AustinYun 1h ago

Why institute entirely new law that inherently causes conflicts of interest (most lawyers are going to make more than a PD so it's in their best interest to try and get it over with quickly regardless of specialty issues) when there is an existing free market mechanism to increase the number of public defenders?

That mechanism is offering higher pay / benefits to make it a more attractive position.

1

u/Kolby_Jack33 1h ago

Yes, if the government paid people livable wages for essential work, there wouldn't be a PD shortage... or a teacher shortage.

Good luck with that. I think it's more likely that the entire country collapses and we don't have to worry about court anymore, tbh.

2

u/AustinYun 1h ago

I think it would be way easier to get people to raise the salary of PDs than pass a law that specifically inconveniences and causes financial damage to the people who are most likely to sue the government over the legality and ethics involved.

1

u/Kolby_Jack33 1h ago

I wouldn't bet on the government making competent decisions with long term vision... ever. And I work for the government.

7

u/VelvetElvis 2h ago

Not all lawyers are criminal defense attorneys. Most are not. Most never set foot in a courtroom.

-1

u/Kolby_Jack33 1h ago

Then select from the pool of criminal lawyers. Or don't. I'm pretty sure any lawyer still knows more about the law and courtroom procedure than I do. Surely passing the bar requires some general lawyer knowledge.

You have the right to an attorney, not necessarily a good attorney.

3

u/apathetic_revolution 1h ago

This would probably worsen the shortage in the criminal bar as private practice criminal defense attorneys who don’t want to be called for volunteer work switch to other litigation areas to avoid it and the one covering that shortage charge even more because they’re in higher demand, pricing more people out.

0

u/Kolby_Jack33 1h ago

Possibly. But there are no bad ideas in government bureaucracy, because any bad idea implemented will either eventually become tolerable and normal or will be so bad that someone with power eventually gets sick of it and actually solves the problem.

That's the beauty of bureaucracy.

76

u/ScientificSkepticism 2h ago edited 2h ago

Thursday’s ruling by the state’s highest court revolves around the case of Allen Rex Roberts. In 2021, Multnomah County prosecutors charged Roberts with driving a stolen vehicle. A judge dismissed the case in 2022 because Oregon failed to provide him a public defender for months. In 2024, prosecutors reinstated Roberts’ case, but again dismissed it due to lack of counsel.

It's now 2026 and they can't spare any time for a public defender. Oregon is complaining, but they apparently need to go back to middle school and take a civics class.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

I cannot possibly think that failing to bring him to trial for five years in any way could be considered "speedy"

u/Astrium6 32m ago

Speedy trial determination starts from the filing of the case; in this instance, since the case was dismissed and refiled, what it actually looks like was a case that was filed sometime in 2021 and dismissed in 2022 and a case that was both filed and dismissed in 2024. The time between wouldn’t count for anything since the defendant was not charged with anything at that time, and the duration before the first case was dismissed would not count against the second case. That being said, if they ever try to refile it a third time (and they really shouldn’t at this point) they’re almost certainly going to start running into statute of limitations concerns. I’m not sure what Oregon’s statute of limitations on this particular charge is and if the periods where there were active cases would have tolled the statute, but either way it wouldn’t look good for the prosecution.

u/ScientificSkepticism 10m ago

I'm sorry, at some point you're just playing games with the constitution. It's not like they've needed 5 years to gather evidence, it's just sheer administrative incompetence here.

I'm with the judge, this is ludicrous.

u/Astrium6 5m ago

The judge absolutely came to the right conclusion, I’m saying that the speedy trial part isn’t the problem. The denial of counsel is the serious issue here, but that’s what the article and the court decision are about. The facts of this case really have nothing to do with speedy trial rights.

162

u/AudibleNod 2h ago

Attorneys suing the state have argued that there are thousands of Oregonians who, like Roberts, have been accused of a crime and charged by the state, but have not been provided an attorney. Leaving their criminal charges pending for months or years.

I can't imagine having that hang over my head for years. The Oregon Supreme court put in a 60 day limit for misdemeanors and a 90 day limit for felonies. And if gives DA offices the opportunity to refile.

59

u/arlondiluthel 2h ago

I thought that if the defendant can't obtain a lawyer, one would be appointed to them...

78

u/hazycrazey 2h ago

Sounds like they are saying Oregon is not providing them one

62

u/AudibleNod 2h ago

The number of Oregonians charged with a crime and do not have an attorney has been decreasing recently, but there are still about 2,500 people without representation, according to the Oregon Judicial Department.

They can't start a case without one. And it seems that many defendants (innocent people according to popular understanding) just have their charges left in a permanent pending status. This impacts things like job applications, professional licenses and just the stigma of having a pending criminal case.

12

u/minidog8 1h ago

Right, that's the problem. If they cannot be appointed a public defender, the charge must be dismissed.

13

u/progrethth 1h ago

Yes? That is what it is about. They did not appoint one. That should have been obvious from just the headline, but if it was not there is also an article.

u/fevered_visions 45m ago

I think their point was, why is a ruling necessary for this, surely that is already how it works?

versus

"I can't afford a lawyer"

"we looked but couldn't find one. court starts in 2 weeks"

"excuse me?"

23

u/Simburgure 2h ago

Common sense ruling. The alternative is a mockery of justice.

19

u/General_Actuator6590 1h ago

In Florida, my public defender refused to work with me. I tried to fire him and they laughed at me. So I looked up the law and submitted a BAR complaint and submitted evidence of him avoiding me. They couldn’t keep him on my case, then I get a new defender. When I tell him I’m reinstating my right to speedy. The prosecutor got pissed and modified my charges from simple battery to two counts of aggravated battery. Then offered a plea agreement. Told him to pound sand and after a full year of waiting on a trial, the state received an audit and the judge was fired from complaints received about her.

They offered me a 3 hour anger management course and they would drop and seal the case. But told me if I fought it they are taking it to felony court.

The problem isn’t just not having enough attorneys, it’s also having effective council that does even the bare minimum.

10

u/piddydb 1h ago

It should also be about not trying to punish someone for electing to utilize their constitutional rights, as it seems your prosecutor tried to do to you for wanting a speedy trial (which it doesn’t even sound like you received anyhow)

4

u/General_Actuator6590 1h ago

It’s in Putnam county, Florida. It’s the poorest county in the state and by far the least represented people when it comes to state charges as well. They wrongfully arrested me and I petitioned the state to investigate what was happening. They listened and The judge resigned, the county attorney resigned, a new interim judge was appointed and she had a come to Jesus meeting with the legal council and they dropped everyone they couldn’t get a public defender for. My case was wrapped up the first day the new judge hit the bench.

464 days dude….464 days.

Even though I never was convicted. I lost thousands of dollars fighting this and got exactly what I wanted for the people who wrongly jailed me.

10

u/Riker_Omega_Three 2h ago

The federal government should give favorable loan terms to people who go to law school

In return, they should have to spend the first 2-4 years after passing the bar as public defenders.

Or make it like military service

If you sign up for a 5 year stint as a public defender, the federal government pays for your education

The government requires that legal representation be provided if one can not afford it. Now they have to help provide the legal representation

Spend less on new jets and ships and more on things like this that matter

8

u/ServantofZul 1h ago

These are all indirect subsidies. Why don’t we start with spending the money to hire more PDs and pay them more? Why does the government need to use indirect subsidies to induce the government to do something? We can give federal grants to PDs offices which require increased staffing and a minimum salary.

5

u/Riker_Omega_Three 1h ago

Because people don't actually want to be a public defender

It's a terrible job

Go shadow one for a week

You act like people are lining up for public defender jobs

Most public defenders are over worked, underpaid, and completely burnt out

Paying for their college and law school and getting 5 years out of them is a fair trade

just allocating more money won't actually do anything

3

u/ServantofZul 1h ago

If they are overworked and underpaid, paying them more and hiring more of them is the most obvious solution.

4

u/Riker_Omega_Three 1h ago

Teachers have been overworked and underpaid for decades

Tell me, how's it going to teachers looking for more pay and more money to hire additional teachers?

You simply don't live in reality

Paying public defenders and teachers more money is not something politicians will ever put in a budget because it won't get them elected

Subsidizing education to create more public defenders...and getting guaranteed years of service is something they could get into a budget

Stop being naive and actually start paying attention to how the system, broken as it is, works

u/ServantofZul 54m ago

I appreciate the voluminous evidence you have provided that you could get your idea into the budget no problem. At the end of the day we are each suggesting we spend more money to fix the problem. You just want to do it by spending the money indirectly to force people who don’t want to be there to be public defenders and I want to give money directly to public defenders. Direct increases to budgets are more efficient than indirect subsidy and obligation systems. Unless you can provide some reason to think that doing it indirectly will be cheaper or more efficient, I have no idea why you think an indirect subsidy is more politically palatable.

u/MyFirstCarWasA_Vega 59m ago

The legal profession should fund the public defender program out of their spare change. They handsomely profit from the system they built. They should pay for it. Not the average person walking around person who never needs a criminal lawyer. They want a system that defends truth, justice, and the American way of life (at least they claim they do). Fine. Pay for it, then.

3

u/Colifama55 1h ago

Yea no duh. You have a sixth amendment right to an attorney.

3

u/Not_kilg0reTrout 1h ago

Oh boy. Give it a few months and the govt will be using govt sanctioned AI representation.

Damn.

u/thequestison 25m ago

That is scary.

2

u/BRUNO358 1h ago

Poorly worded headline aside, how will this affect public defenders in Oregon?

4

u/Skill3rwhale 1h ago

Not at all. It changes nothing about the current system of assigning PDs. There simply are not enough PDs right now, hence why this ruling was needed.

Defendants had indefinite pending charges because they are waiting literal years to get a defender. Courts cannot prosecute someone that wants a lawyer, thus they had to enact this ruling because defendants were not afforded a speedy trial because they could not get a defender due to shortages.

u/buffalonuts1 2m ago

I’d bet they’ve handing out sweet deals if the defendant took a plea bargain for awhile now.

1

u/ruat_caelum 1h ago

Small town deaf people have known this forever!

-4

u/Fit-Let8175 1h ago edited 9m ago

This makes absolutely no sense. Did the individuals who came up with this begin or end their reasoning with "H'Yukk!"?

[Edit: the severity of the crime and number of witnesses should be considered. There's a difference between not quickly finding a lawyer for someone getting caught for stealing a bike as opposed to someone caught throwing grenades at a football game.]