Impartial law

I was just thinking about the law and impartiality. I wonder what the legal system would be like in America and Britain - in fact, any "developed" country - if everyone had to use state employed council or what the Americans call "public defenders". I mean, it would certainly be fair, as there'd be an equal playing field. I don't understand how justice can be done when one party can spend money to change the outcome. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. How on Earth can justice be fair when one person can spend money to change the outcome of a case?

If everyone had to use public defenders and there was a "lottery" as to who got who, then surely there would be a shift in the quality of public defenders. After all, this is one aspect of society that surely should be nationalized. A person's responsible for his own health and such. There can at least be some argument for private medicine. But the law's something else. When the state itself is complicit in creating imbalance and injustice, then that's something to be addressed. Capitalism's a good thing, and what the American Constitution stands for is a fine thing. But such things as legal representation shouldn't be warped by how much money a person has got to spend on counsel.

As someone who's had the interesting experience of needing the services of a public defender myself, I understand the inadequacies of the service. Yes, on some level we can say that it's a fine thing that a person can get free legal counsel at all. But on the other hand it also means that a person with money can manipulate the law. That's not right at all - at least not in a free and civilised country. The way the Republican party used its legal teams to win the 2000 election is a good example, as is how OJ Simpson got off a murder conviction.

Law has to be impartial in a free and even handed society, or it can only ever be referred to as corrupt.