Hacker News Reader

Comment by asimilator | Hacker News Reader

Legal research services (access to dockets, case text, etc.) tend to be extremely expensive. I think making that more widely available is a good thing for people with limited resources. It's kind of nuts how impenetrable the legal system is if you don't have any resources.

View on HN

Great point.

It's extremely difficult to represent yourself pro se if you don't have access to information about how cases like yours might unfold, arguments that have been used, how well those arguments have worked, how the cases have been decided, whether a company has settled a similar case as yours, and so on.

Is that really a bad thing? Nobody should be representing themselves because they have no idea beyond Law and Order what all is supposed to be happening around them. That's why you get a complementary attorney if you can't afford one.

It's just too important to risk no?

Like DIY surgery. It's quite expensive and impenetrable to be doing your own appendectomy and I'm not mad about that. In both cases you could if you really had to but a high barrier to entry for me is not a bug but a feature.

Just like surgery, your argument only works given effective public funding.

> That's why you get a complementary attorney if you can't afford one.

Not in US you don't. Leaving aside how you don't have a right to a lawyer when you are on either side of a civil matter, most states will send you a bill should you avail yourself of the "a lawyer will be provided for you" part of the Miranda rights. Now, if you are broke, they'll still provide services to you.

In Canada you actually get free legal advice before any questioning.

To clarify, that's not a bill you only have to pay if you get a windfall. That's a bill that (in some places) will be agressively collected as a part of your fines.

If you're in prison you also have nearly no rights to a lawyer. (For example, if you want to sue the prison system for inhumane conditions)

Edit: For ex you may need to pay fees to be allowed to drive, which you may need to go to work/buy food.

> that's not a bill you only have to pay if you get a windfall

You can't get a windfall as a criminal defendant, just a conviction or not.

That's (mostly) true, but unrelated to what I meant. I meant to say if the government determines you can't afford a lawyer, it will (sometimes) bill you for the lawyer it provides. Sometimes if you're very poor you get debts that in theory you have to pay but in practice won't be pursued unless you get a windfall, because you don't have any money. This isn't one of those.

I see what you mean - a windfall independently of the criminal prosecution. That makes sense.

Anna Sorokin got 300k from Netflix. Incarcerated individuals may still inherit. Sometimes money comes. The States are not always aggressive in pursuing such funds; but the Feds usually (not always) are.

So poor people with an interest in surgery should have zero access to medical journals? This is all just taxpayer funded information that you and I pay for every year in taxes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com