Does anybody else think this should be changed? Constitutional loophole.?

Question

I'll give a hypothetical example then I would like all the opinions I can get.

Say you are very poor and cant afford a lawyer. The courts grant you one but he poorly represents you. Many violations of your constitutional rights have been violated but your attorney doesn't mention them in court. Then During your appeal, the courts argue that because you didn't object to the constitutional violations you don't have the right to appeal on their grounds.

In other words you don't have those rights anymore because your lawyer didn't object during trial.

Does anybody else besides me believe that this is what our forefathers intended when they wrote our constitution? Personally I think that no loophole in the law should be allowed that removes or voids a constitutional right.

I'm not trying to be rude but anybody who wishes to comment on my intelligence level based on spelling or grammar, please refrain from answering this question. this is intended for mature intelligent persons to answer.

Answer 1

I don't see a problem here.  You think that because the lawyer was free to the client, the client did not get adequate representation.  What if the client had paid $20,000?  Do you think there would be any room for error on the attorney's part or that the lawyer would provide the best possible representation?  Not necessarily.  Even with money you can get screwed.  What I see you asking is if a guy can get off on technicalities on the basis that the attorney was court appointed.  I would guess that not anymore so than if you had paid good money.  Either way, your best bet is stay out of court in the first place.  The judges are watching the clock and they don't want to miss happy hour.  They don't want to spend any more time with what they see as low life's any more than they have to.

Answer 2

You need to be more specific as to what consitutional rights were violated. I think you get what you pay for. If someone can't afford an attorney so one is provided to them at the taxpayer's expense, then they're gonna ***** about it? Ugh I hope they do get locked up if that's how appreciative they are of the system. There's a difference why some lawyers charge $200/hr and others 2,000/hr - the quality, so someone who eats at McDonalds for free cuz someone offered them a free lunch, then complains why they didn't get a gourmet meal doesn't deserve anything more from the system in my opinion. Too ungrateful for what they were given to begin with and too problematic and expensive on the public to support. Maybe they do belong behind bars. I wouldn't want laws allowing them to complain, appeal more and so on endlessly while on the public's dime. Bad/Good enough they are getting defended for FREE to them. So pay for your own if you don't like it. I don't think the founding fathers new how ungrateful and spoiled people were going to end up, appealing cases ad nauseum and abusing the system. Even a paid for attorney might not do the best job. That's llfe and luck. Your logic is like everyone should live in a 10 bedroom house regardless of how much they can afford to pay for it. In reality it's each according to his means haha.

Answer 3

I've written this a hundred million times.  I don't care how broke you are.  If you have to work for the next 20 years to pay it off, get a lawyer.

Public defenders are not entirely useless they are just loaded with cases.  They couldn't possibly care about your outcome they are just looking for a result.  Closure.