Court to Weigh Legal Aid in Contempt Cases

Submitted by Matt on Tue, 2010-12-07 03:54

Article here. Excerpt:

'WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether poor people who face incarceration for civil contempt are entitled to court-appointed lawyers.

In a series of decisions starting with Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963, the Supreme Court has held that poor people facing the loss of liberty for crimes must be provided with lawyers. The question in the new case, Turner v. Price, No. 10-10, is whether that right also applies where incarceration is meant to be coercive rather than punitive.

The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled in March that Michael D. Turner, who was held in civil contempt and sentenced to a year in prison for failing to pay child support, had no constitutional right to a lawyer. The point of the sentence was to make Mr. Turner pay rather than to punish him, the court said.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Many state constitutions put basic rights like "Trial by jury" to matters $20 & over. A driver license reinstatement fee is more than that in Missouri. Any of us have a trial by jury before they revoke a drivers license, suspend a passport, seize an account, put a lien on an asset that we can't get removed? (This is supposed to apply to civil, as well as criminal cases in my state.)

Substantive due process ... Any due process? You can ask for an accounting, but you can't fix errors in the accounting beyond a record of payment; assessment, and misapplication of funds, disparate treatment of one child versus another are off the table.

Pretty much the only thing they don't have automated in the system is the denial of the right to vote, and I wouldn't be surprised if they put that up next.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Timber on Tue, 2010-12-07 10:04

It wasn't that long ago when a man accused of a crime had to rely on his own resources to defend himself regardless of his financial ability to hire a defense team. You were not guaranteed a lawyer. Of course the court appointed attorneys are no bargain. They will manipulate you into a plea deal even if you are not guilty just to get back to their paying customers.

The best way to handle the child support racket is to limit the states interests in the welfare of children in divorce to only the bare minimum of support. If this is met, just like it is in intact marriages, then the state has no further interests and should let the parents work out their own arrangements for support just as in intact marriages. This way the state will not have to be obsessed with ordering cosmetic orthodontic work or band/cheerleader uniforms at the point of a gun.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Luek on Tue, 2010-12-07 16:35