In Defense of the Public Defender

Interesting article by Radley Balko, above.

While as libertarians we may argue in general that the state should spend less money on various things, is this one of the exceptions where we should spend more?

Also consider the following from SCOTUS Justice Hugo Black: If the state aims to take away someone’s freedom, the defendant has an “absolute, unqualified right to compel the State to investigate its own case, find its own witnesses, prove its own facts, and convince the jury through its own resources. Throughout the process, the defendant has a fundamental right to remain silent, in effect challenging the State at every point to ‘Prove it!’ ”

Thus this could be considered as an example not of the state spending money to increase its own power, but as a means of checking Nifong-esque abuses by itself. Checks and balances, in other words, within the judicial system.

Given that the government has created a legal system so complex and intricate that the average person is not fit to defend himself or herself in court, is it not the government's prerogative to provide legal counsel to the accused, at their own expense if necessary?

(Of course, one could and should argue that the legal system maybe shouldn't be so complicated, and we maybe shouldn't have so many damn laws, but seeing as that's not going to happen anytime soon, this is a stopgap measure.)