The Sixth Amendment costs $150 in San Bernardino County, California
| posted by William K Wolfrum | Saturday, February 23, 2008In 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.
In the rapid evolution of the United States that began on Sept. 11, 2001, one basic concept was more or less rendered as behind the times and ineffective. In Latin it is called "In dubio pro reo," but it is known better as the presumption of innocence, or even more simply, the legal maxim of innocent until proven guilty.
Like many guiding principles of law and morality, however, the presumption of innocence is more and more considered trite, pre-9/11 thinking.
From Jose Padilla, to those tortured to death in Afghanistan, to those tortured (including at least one to death) at Abu Gharib, "innocent until proven guilty" has not so much been reversed as much as it has been twisted to now stand for "you will tell us everything you know and then we will find you guilty."
Guantanamo Bay is a perfect example of such thinking, and the proposed military trials will once again show that the presumption of innocence is no longer a guiding principle of American law or morality. As Col. Morris Davis was told by Pentagon general counsel William Haynes: "we can’t have acquittals. If we’ve been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? We can’t have acquittals, we’ve got to have convictions."
It should come as no surprise that the actions of top officials of the federal government would trickle down to the rest of the nation. Should guilt be assumed rather than innocence presumed by the President of the United States, than why shouldn't the largest county in the U.S. follow that lead?
In San Bernardino, that appears to be the case. From the Victorville Daily Press:
VICTORVILLE — A new automatic fee charged to people using public defenders is meant to protect taxpayer money by making sure those who can pay for legal defense do so.
"We are dealing with the criminal element,” said Mark Uffer, San Bernardino County chief administrative officer. "It's not outside the realm of possibility that they are not telling the truth, just to receive free legal advice."
The county is requesting collection of $150 on all felony cases and $100 on all misdemeanors with no objections, said San Bernardino County Presiding Judge Jim McGuire.
The potential revenue the new policy will bring into the county is in the millions.
Uffer said that if the fee was in place last year and everybody paid, the 47,420 misdemeanors handled in the county would have brought in $4.7 million.
If only 30 percent paid, the county would still gain $1.4 million in revenue.
"This is new money to the system," said Uffer.
The public defender’s office would argue that any fee is inappropriate, said San Bernardino County Spokesman David Wert, but they’ve agreed they’ll support this.
"One of the jobs of the board of supervisors and the administrative office is to protect the taxpayer’s money," said Uffer. "We’ve given away millions of dollars in legal services to people that break the law."
For defendants that truly can’t afford the new imposed fee, the matter is referred a county financial officer and if still not resolved, a hearing can be held to determine how much someone can afford to pay.
The new rule is actually a step better than the previous one that was enacted in January, which required criminal defendants to pay $500 before they would be allowed to plead guilty to misdemeanors. Courts immediately clogged.
Now, however, if you need public assistance, you need to pay for it. And if you can't pay for it, you can get a hearing to determine how much you can pay. Because the poor have had it too easy in this country for too long. After all, Uffer's words bear repeating:
"We are dealing with the criminal element. It’s not outside the realm of possibility that they are not telling the truth, just to receive free legal advice."
This is the Sixth Amendment in San Bernardino County. This is what happens when the Constitution becomes impotent after years of abuse. Because whether you're Khalid Sheik Mohammed at Guantanamo Bay or Joe Schmoe in Victorville, you're a criminal, presumptions be damned.
--WKW
In the rapid evolution of the United States that began on Sept. 11, 2001, one basic concept was more or less rendered as behind the times and ineffective. In Latin it is called "In dubio pro reo," but it is known better as the presumption of innocence, or even more simply, the legal maxim of innocent until proven guilty.
Like many guiding principles of law and morality, however, the presumption of innocence is more and more considered trite, pre-9/11 thinking.
From Jose Padilla, to those tortured to death in Afghanistan, to those tortured (including at least one to death) at Abu Gharib, "innocent until proven guilty" has not so much been reversed as much as it has been twisted to now stand for "you will tell us everything you know and then we will find you guilty."
Guantanamo Bay is a perfect example of such thinking, and the proposed military trials will once again show that the presumption of innocence is no longer a guiding principle of American law or morality. As Col. Morris Davis was told by Pentagon general counsel William Haynes: "we can’t have acquittals. If we’ve been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? We can’t have acquittals, we’ve got to have convictions."
It should come as no surprise that the actions of top officials of the federal government would trickle down to the rest of the nation. Should guilt be assumed rather than innocence presumed by the President of the United States, than why shouldn't the largest county in the U.S. follow that lead?
In San Bernardino, that appears to be the case. From the Victorville Daily Press:
New fee imposed in court
VICTORVILLE — A new automatic fee charged to people using public defenders is meant to protect taxpayer money by making sure those who can pay for legal defense do so.
"We are dealing with the criminal element,” said Mark Uffer, San Bernardino County chief administrative officer. "It's not outside the realm of possibility that they are not telling the truth, just to receive free legal advice."
The county is requesting collection of $150 on all felony cases and $100 on all misdemeanors with no objections, said San Bernardino County Presiding Judge Jim McGuire.
The potential revenue the new policy will bring into the county is in the millions.
Uffer said that if the fee was in place last year and everybody paid, the 47,420 misdemeanors handled in the county would have brought in $4.7 million.
If only 30 percent paid, the county would still gain $1.4 million in revenue.
"This is new money to the system," said Uffer.
The public defender’s office would argue that any fee is inappropriate, said San Bernardino County Spokesman David Wert, but they’ve agreed they’ll support this.
"One of the jobs of the board of supervisors and the administrative office is to protect the taxpayer’s money," said Uffer. "We’ve given away millions of dollars in legal services to people that break the law."
For defendants that truly can’t afford the new imposed fee, the matter is referred a county financial officer and if still not resolved, a hearing can be held to determine how much someone can afford to pay.
The new rule is actually a step better than the previous one that was enacted in January, which required criminal defendants to pay $500 before they would be allowed to plead guilty to misdemeanors. Courts immediately clogged.
Now, however, if you need public assistance, you need to pay for it. And if you can't pay for it, you can get a hearing to determine how much you can pay. Because the poor have had it too easy in this country for too long. After all, Uffer's words bear repeating:
"We are dealing with the criminal element. It’s not outside the realm of possibility that they are not telling the truth, just to receive free legal advice."
This is the Sixth Amendment in San Bernardino County. This is what happens when the Constitution becomes impotent after years of abuse. Because whether you're Khalid Sheik Mohammed at Guantanamo Bay or Joe Schmoe in Victorville, you're a criminal, presumptions be damned.
--WKW
