Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Missouri Governor Fails to Fund Public Defender's Office so They Compel him to Work Cases

posted by janrinok on Friday August 05 2016, @06:28AM   Printer-friendly
from the revenge-is-sweet dept.

martyb writes:

Imagine you are responsible for providing legal representation for indigent people in your state (the public defender's office). Seven years ago, a request for additional funding to meet increased case load was vetoed. Your budget was cut in 2015 and now the governor's office is recommending further cuts. Making things worse is the fact that the number of cases has increased 12%. What would you do?

The Director of the Missouri Public Defender System came up with a novel approach to help meet the increased caseload burden and sent a letter to the Governor (PDF) compelling him to work cases.

Additional reporting here, here, and here.

Original Submission   Alternate Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Missouri Governor Fails to Fund Public Defender's Office so They Compel him to Work Cases | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 45 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday August 06 2016, @03:42AM

    by dry (223) on Saturday August 06 2016, @03:42AM (#384689) Journal

    I don't think I have ever, once in my lifetime observed an American who give a flying fuck about liberty except maybe on the TV. I hate America because Americans hate my freedoms.

    Americans love liberty, especially the liberty to remove the liberty of others. Consider how many Americans believe in the Bill of Rights. Just about every one will disregard the 1st and 2nd. They're good examples because they're so simple, no weasel words like reasonable, just simple restrictions on the government and rights for the people but almost every American thinks that Congress should be able to restrict speech for various reasons such as national security while the 1st has no exceptions written into it and being an amendment, overrides earlier parts of the Constitution. The 2nd is really simple too. People have the right to bear arms, not only honest people or everyone except potential terrorists or only sane people. Arms can be debated a bit more, is a strategic weapon such as an ICBM an arm? I don't know, but I do know that all Homo Sapiens, even non-American citizens, are people and some would say that corporations etc are also people.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2