Why do criminals get free lawyers, but victims of the criminal don't?

[Delta4Embassy]

Reading Aye' kidnapping case thread just now (Stickied in Announcements group) I'm once agains shocked at how ass-backwards our legal system is. A criminal gets a free lawyer if they wish. But the criminal's victim needs to pay for their's. At least in a civil suit.

Thinking of this, and Paris, and 9/11 here, that victims of others' crimes incur costs associated with their victimization isn't fair or right. At least in Paris, the healthcare is free. But was the healthcare of first responders of 9/11 also free, or were police and firefighters bankrupted paying for lifesaving care and longterm healthcare for their problems?

Why should victims victimized once already be further victimized by a system that gives free legal representation to an accused criminal, but forces their victim to hire counsel out of their own pocket? Why should the victim of a terrorist attack (read, something their government did) have to pay for their own medical care? Shouldn't they be allowed to sue the government for its' policies that some foreign terrorists took a potshot at them hurting the 'innocent civilian?'

If nothing else, we need a law making the government liable for costs associated with victims of terrorism. If we can shoehorn in victims of civil crime as well that'd be swell.

 

[Montrovant]

Reading Aye' kidnapping case thread just now (Stickied in Announcements group) I'm once agains shocked at how ass-backwards our legal system is. A criminal gets a free lawyer if they wish. But the criminal's victim needs to pay for their's. At least in a civil suit.

Thinking of this, and Paris, and 9/11 here, that victims of others' crimes incur costs associated with their victimization isn't fair or right. At least in Paris, the healthcare is free. But was the healthcare of first responders of 9/11 also free, or were police and firefighters bankrupted paying for lifesaving care and longterm healthcare for their problems?

Why should victims victimized once already be further victimized by a system that gives free legal representation to an accused criminal, but forces their victim to hire counsel out of their own pocket? Why should the victim of a terrorist attack (read, something their government did) have to pay for their own medical care? Shouldn't they be allowed to sue the government for its' policies that some foreign terrorists took a potshot at them hurting the 'innocent civilian?'

If nothing else, we need a law making the government liable for costs associated with victims of terrorism. If we can shoehorn in victims of civil crime as well that'd be swell.

It isn't that criminals get representation, it is that accused citizens get representation. You know, innocent until proven guilty? The accused are not criminals (at least for whatever they are accused of) until convicted, legally.

Victims do not get free lawyers because, I would think, the state is already using their own lawyers to prosecute the accused. Victims would usually only be hiring lawyers for civil cases.

 

[foggedinn]

As noted, district attorneys already represent victims by doing their job. If you can convince a lawyer that you have a case in a civil action against someone of means, they will be more than happy to take the case at no cost to you for a percentage of the judgement. If you have a valid case against someone of no means, there is no point in a lawsuit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Reading Aye' kidnapping case thread just now (Stickied in Announcements group) I'm once agains shocked at how ass-backwards our legal system is. A criminal gets a free lawyer if they wish. But the criminal's victim needs to pay for their's. At least in a civil suit.

Thinking of this, and Paris, and 9/11 here, that victims of others' crimes incur costs associated with their victimization isn't fair or right. At least in Paris, the healthcare is free. But was the healthcare of first responders of 9/11 also free, or were police and firefighters bankrupted paying for lifesaving care and longterm healthcare for their problems?

Why should victims victimized once already be further victimized by a system that gives free legal representation to an accused criminal, but forces their victim to hire counsel out of their own pocket? Why should the victim of a terrorist attack (read, something their government did) have to pay for their own medical care? Shouldn't they be allowed to sue the government for its' policies that some foreign terrorists took a potshot at them hurting the 'innocent civilian?'

If nothing else, we need a law making the government liable for costs associated with victims of terrorism. If we can shoehorn in victims of civil crime as well that'd be swell.

Victims DO get lawyers: they're called "prosecutors".

If someone gets sued as a result of a crime they're convicted of, they have to pay a lawyer to represent them, too.

 

[MichaelVGarry]

They do get an attorney when they needed.

 

[yiostheoy]

Supreme Court law.

 

[MichaelVGarry]

They do get an attorney when they needed. There are various procedures for that, but it depends on nature of the crime. If it is too nasty then they are treated differently. You can read more here about the rights of criminals and how the judgment is taken.

 

[ogibillm]

so bottom line is the op did not know what he was talking about