From “Prison Is Prison” by Seattle Law School Prof. Brooke Coleman (Notre Dame Law Review, 2013):
Two indigent men stand before two separate judges. Both will be sent to prison if they lose their cases. One receives appointed counsel, but the other does not. This discrepancy seems terribly unjust, yet the Supreme Court has no problem with it. It recently affirmed in Turner v. Rogers that where an indigent individual is subject to criminal charges that can result in incarceration, he has a right to appointed counsel, but where an indigent individual is subject to civil proceedings where incarceration is a consequence, he does not. In other words, criminal and civil proceedings have different rules, and the right to appointed counsel is no exception. This Article argues that because the consequence of these proceedings is exactly the same, the right to appointed counsel should be the same. Prison is prison. This consequence, and not just doctrinal distinctions, should guide the Court’s analysis in deciding whether an indigent individual receives appointed counsel. By systematically examining the Court’s narratives in both criminal and civil right-to-counsel cases, this Article seeks to determine why the Court continues to treat the same situation so differently. The Court states that it is driven solely by doctrine, but it uses radically different language to discuss the individuals, attorneys, and nature of the proceedings in the criminal versus civil setting. This Article argues that the Court’s different goals in the criminal and civil context better explain the Court’s approach than doctrinal distinctions alone. With criminal cases, its goal is legitimacy, while with civil cases, its primary goal is efficiency.
Copyright © 2015 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
*Restraining order prosecutions are civil procedures. Arguable synonyms for efficiency are short shrift and railroading (also travesty).
Anonymous
October 25, 2015
Todd the violence against women act vawa is a federal funded program. It’s goals are to assist petitioners toward successful injunctions. It is not opinion but fact. The usdoj is required to report to Congress and in this report search for the word successful. http://www.justice.gov/ovw/file/450866/download the fact that the federal government funds these County domestic violence units to support litigants in civil cases clearly creates a nexus it is government acting against you to take substantial rights. Your first amendment and second amendment in many vawa cases you have to turn in or out posses guns. It is in that loss of substantial rights that may bridge the appointed of counsel in civil matters.
You have my email and as of now not quite sure if I will win but I understand the system and you have a lot of people making money in the system that guide the petitioners with federal money toward success. The fact they have an attorney furthers the unequal scales if justice.
You should note too that people in authority such as courts and politicians don’t like speech. In fact they got where they are because the held their tongue in a lot of stuff they witness. Now that they are there the expect their subjects to hold theirs too. So although it is against a specific person the system is in agreement to silence as many as they can.
LikeLike
Moderator
October 26, 2015
I think you’re right, and I know you are, too.
I listened to the former editor (I think) of Ms. Magazine on NPR today in an interview with Terri Gross. Not unpredictably she named violence against women to be women’s most pressing concern (to her mind), and an implicit comparison was drawn between what’s called “domestic violence” (which in our country can mean a threat or a pinch or a shout) and the violence of war zones and that inflicted by extremist religious factions. This is the power of rhetoric.
The Violence Against Women Act, too, has provided billions of dollars to influence arrest policies, and the same minds behind it are the ones providing funding to or performing “social science research” that’s used to “train” judges. Procedures are influenced (biased, corrupted) on all levels, seen and unseen.
https://talkingback2restrainingorders.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/vawa_94_00_05.pdf
LikeLike
Anne Copeland
September 28, 2015
Hi, I am majoring in criminal justice, and I am a senior in years as well. I have been through the same things as most of those writing here – restraining order and in this case, falsified, and even the “witness” was not credible as she had a grudge against me ahead of time as I had called the police repeatedly on her for Meth use and dealing from her home (right next to mine).
OK, so here is the deal. If the state is prosecuting you, you have rights, but as a civil defendant, where the case involves two individuals, one a plaintiff and one a defendant, we lose those rights. It is only allowed where the state is bringing charges against us, but not where it is individual against individual.
In my mind, this is still majorly unconstitutional as the constitution does not distinguish between these two classes, but states ALL citizens.
Now here is the thing. Do you realize how many hundreds of us there are? If each of us just put in $100, we could afford a constitutional attorney to take this charge to court. We would need to find a really good one who would really fight for the case, and who had a track record, but that shouldn’t be too hard. I believe that this CAN and SHOULD be overturned. Right now is the best time to do this because this is a time when a lot of civil issues are coming before the Supreme Court (i.e. gay marriages, abortions, end of life, etc.) and all of these are being ruled positively.
The thing is that if we don’t ever try to do anything about any of these injustices, we will be lifetime victims. Is that what people really want here? Or are we all hoping that some person will come along and take care of all of it for us? Right now I have been steadily working on learning everything I can pros and cons to try to help with this situation as I realize how truly unjust it is. I too suffered immensely from what the judge allowed to happen without even allowing me to defend my own self, let alone have anyone else speak up for me. So what I learned from that was that if we really believe we are innocent of what we have been charged with, we are going to have to take a stand and fight back. Listen, one voice is a tiny candle in the night, but there are so many of us we CAN make our voices heard and achieve something. The problem is that this sort of thing brings on a sense of shame and powerlessness, sort of like what happens with children who are abused. They suffer immensely, sometimes all their lives, from the wrongs that others have done to them. But it is because once they have lived through such horrors, they lose their voices. But we are not those children and we do not deserve to continue to live as victims. Listen, we CAN do things if we believe we can. Even if the very worst would happen and we would not initially win, eventually we WOULD because it happens throughout the legal system. And wouldn’t it be better than to live like this?
Well, I know that I for one am working on learning everything I can about how it all works so that I CAN do something. I am like everyone else who reads this blog; I am not a rich person; in fact, I am a physically challenged 74-year-old senior in the low-income bracket, but I am determined that where there is a will, there is a way. Hope some of you will join in this. What do we have to lose? Really??? Thank you.
LikeLike
Anonymous
September 28, 2015
I was subjected to this same “equal protection” of law. However I believe a point that most overlook is that a in a ro/po case where the states attorney or “prosecutor” in a civil trial has the same duties imposed as in a criminal trial which is to seek justice rather than conviction. Also, anytime the power of the state is against an individual that person should be provided an attorney if he can not afford one. Houston in Harris County Texas only opened a public defender office in 2012. In 2009 case law was available stating that a PO defendant should be assigned counsel if indecency is an issue however they to this day routinely deny that assistance without explanation.
LikeLike
Miriam Hirshberger
September 27, 2015
In my case I was defendant. I suppose because I am a woman when I appealed the injunction it gave me some clout that a man may not have had. I was the indigent party representing myself in prp per. The judge asked my opponents attorney if his client might be willig to withdraw the injunction as I was leaving the countrh but I am not now and I still have heard nothig almost two months later. His lawyer did say he just ” wanted it all to go away”. Yet it is still on the court calendar. Who knows? Rights are rights and both civil a d criminal cases shoulf bevtreated equally…
LikeLike