{"title":"甄别、委任律师资助和律师协助司法","authors":"Benjamin H. Barton, Stephanos Bibas","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1919534","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For decades, scholars and advocates have lauded Gideon’s guarantee of appointed counsel in criminal cases and sought to extend it into a civil-Gideon right in a range of civil cases. This past Term, the Supreme Court disappointed the civil-Gideon movement in Turner v. Rogers, unanimously rejecting an across-the-board right to counsel while encouraging reforms to make courts more accessible to pro se litigants. Turner is mostly right, we argue, because funding limitations require reserving counsel mostly for criminal cases, where they are needed most. For the first time, the Court recognized that lawyers can make cases not only slower and more complex, but also less fair. The better alternative, as Turner acknowledged, is less-expensive pro se court reform, rather than the impossible dream of giving everyone a lawyer. We offer some concrete suggestions on what legislatures, courts, legal-aid organizations, and others can do to further pro se access to justice.","PeriodicalId":48012,"journal":{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law Review","volume":"160 1","pages":"967"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2012-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Triaging Appointed-Counsel Funding and Pro Se Access to Justice\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin H. Barton, Stephanos Bibas\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1919534\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"For decades, scholars and advocates have lauded Gideon’s guarantee of appointed counsel in criminal cases and sought to extend it into a civil-Gideon right in a range of civil cases. This past Term, the Supreme Court disappointed the civil-Gideon movement in Turner v. Rogers, unanimously rejecting an across-the-board right to counsel while encouraging reforms to make courts more accessible to pro se litigants. Turner is mostly right, we argue, because funding limitations require reserving counsel mostly for criminal cases, where they are needed most. For the first time, the Court recognized that lawyers can make cases not only slower and more complex, but also less fair. The better alternative, as Turner acknowledged, is less-expensive pro se court reform, rather than the impossible dream of giving everyone a lawyer. We offer some concrete suggestions on what legislatures, courts, legal-aid organizations, and others can do to further pro se access to justice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Pennsylvania Law Review\",\"volume\":\"160 1\",\"pages\":\"967\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Pennsylvania Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1919534\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Pennsylvania Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1919534","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10
摘要
几十年来,学者和倡导者称赞吉迪恩在刑事案件中保证指定律师,并试图将其扩展到一系列民事案件中的民事-吉迪恩权利。上一届任期,最高法院在特纳诉罗杰斯案(Turner v. Rogers)中一致否决了一项全面的律师权利,同时鼓励改革,使法院更容易为辩诉当事人服务,这让民事吉迪恩运动感到失望。我们认为,特纳在很大程度上是正确的,因为资金限制要求为最需要律师的刑事案件保留律师。最高法院第一次认识到,律师不仅会使案件审理速度变慢、变得更复杂,而且还会使案件变得不公平。正如特纳承认的那样,更好的选择是成本更低的自诉法院改革,而不是让每个人都有律师这样不可能实现的梦想。我们就立法机关、法院、法律援助组织和其他机构如何进一步促进诉诸司法提出了一些具体建议。
Triaging Appointed-Counsel Funding and Pro Se Access to Justice
For decades, scholars and advocates have lauded Gideon’s guarantee of appointed counsel in criminal cases and sought to extend it into a civil-Gideon right in a range of civil cases. This past Term, the Supreme Court disappointed the civil-Gideon movement in Turner v. Rogers, unanimously rejecting an across-the-board right to counsel while encouraging reforms to make courts more accessible to pro se litigants. Turner is mostly right, we argue, because funding limitations require reserving counsel mostly for criminal cases, where they are needed most. For the first time, the Court recognized that lawyers can make cases not only slower and more complex, but also less fair. The better alternative, as Turner acknowledged, is less-expensive pro se court reform, rather than the impossible dream of giving everyone a lawyer. We offer some concrete suggestions on what legislatures, courts, legal-aid organizations, and others can do to further pro se access to justice.