[danaris]

Just because one is legally entitled to a lawyer doesn't mean one will

a) understand that fully at the time of interrogation, especially if one is a minor or a foreigner

b) trust that a court-appointed lawyer will actually work for your best interests

c) actually get a court-appointed lawyer who does work for your best interests.

So your assumption that someone in this position necessarily has an effective lawyer present, absent other police misconduct, is clearly a flawed assumption.

[giantg2]

Minors can't be interrogated without a representative.

The Miranda reading should mean they understand the right to a lawyer.

You have to trust that any lawyer will work for your best interest since they tend to be paid regardless of outcome.

If they don't work for your best interest and you can prove it, you get a retrial. Same for private attorneys.

"So your assumption that someone in this position necessarily has an effective lawyer present, absent other police misconduct, is clearly a flawed assumption."

Where is that assumption? They necessarily have access to one. We can what-if all day. The fact is, you have the right to an effective attorney. This is even popularized by TV, and thus common knowledge.

[danaris]

No, you have the right to an attorney.

And what's popularized by TV, through dozens of police procedurals, most of which could be fairly accurately termed "copaganda," is the idea that asking for a lawyer is what guilty people do.

And, again: even if you actually have an attorney present with you, it is not guaranteed that they will be effective, and your handwaving that "If they don't work for your best interest and you can prove it, you get a retrial" does not negate the fact that a) people can, and do, take bad advice from attorneys that results in devastating plea bargains, b) actually proving they didn't work in your best interest is nontrivial, and c) even if you can do that, a retrial also requires an attorney, which you probably still can't afford to hire, so you're just getting another public defender, and also, in the vast majority of cases, takes place while you are still in prison...and will likely take months to years.

In general, your assumptions are very much that for someone wrongfully accused, the justice system will be kind and work in the most ideal way possible. I would not seek to deny that that can happen (particularly for affluent white men); my point is simply that it is only one end of the spectrum of possibilities, and far from the most likely for people who are further down the socioeconomic ladder.

Edit to add: Re: Miranda rights, the Supreme Court recently gutted that, making it far, far more difficult to ensure that any given accused has been read and understands their rights.

[giantg2]

"No, you have the right to an attorney."

No what?

"it is not guaranteed that they will be effective,"

Umm, yeah you do. If you have ineffective counsel you can get a new one or even a new trial. That is a legal right.

"a) people can, and do, take bad advice from attorneys that results in devastating plea bargains, b) actually proving they didn't work in your best interest is nontrivial, and c) even if you can do that, a retrial also requires an attorney, which you probably still can't afford to hire, so you're just getting another public defender, and also, in the vast majority of cases, takes place while you are still in prison...and will likely take months to years."

Your point? All of this is also true with private lawyers.

"In general, your assumptions are very much that for someone wrongfully accused, the justice system will be kind and work in the most ideal way possible."

Not at all! Stop incorrectly patronizing me! I believe more or less the opposite.

"Re: Miranda rights, the Supreme Court recently gutted that, making it far, far more difficult to ensure that any given accused has been read and understands their rights."

Source?