The Price of Justice, II
Following up on my last post about the price of justice: Again, my claim is not just that it’s bad that legal prices are so high. My claim is that these high prices constitute an *injustice* on the part of *the state*. This is my second main argument for this:
II. The obligation to provide justice:
A. The government has a positive obligation to provide justice.
Explanation: Everyone has an obligation *not* to commit *injustice*. The state, in addition, has a duty to actively *provide justice*, e.g., by enforcing people’s rights. (In contrast, e.g., plumbers have to respect people’s rights but they don’t have to do anything to actually enforce anyone’s rights.)
Reasons:
The government has taken up adjudicating legal cases and enforcing their results. It has to provide justice in these cases, since otherwise, it will be enforcing unjust results.
The government forcibly collects money from people to support government functions, including especially justice-related functions, e.g., protecting rights and making criminals pay for their crimes. It might be unjust that they collect this money forcibly. But given that they’re doing it, they’re obligated to provide the services that they’re making us pay for.
The government has a coercive monopoly on justice-providing services. They forcibly stop anyone else from enforcing rights, punishing crime, etc. Therefore, they have to do it.
B. The high price of legal services means that the government fails in the obligation to provide justice.
Presumably, the obligation to provide justice is not just for the rich; the government has an obligation to provide justice for everyone, or *at least* every taxpayer.
But in the current system, only the rich can afford to get justice in the government’s legal system. E.g., if someone has wronged you, in most cases, you simply can’t afford to bring a legal case against them. Also, if the government prosecutes you, many people can’t afford an attorney. And an underpaid public defender who has hundreds of other cases is not really adequate. (See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/our-public-defender-system-isnt-just-broken--its-unconstitutional/2015/09/03/aadf2b6c-519b-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html?utm_term=.7f9c5a9cea4c)
Also, the high prices mean that a significant cost is imposed on everyone who has a legal case, whether they are in the right or not. So if you are prosecuted, even if you’re not guilty, you are in effect seriously punished.
C. Conclusion: the high price of legal services amounts to an injustice on the part of the state.
I haven’t said what should be done about this injustice. The obvious starting point would be to try to reduce prices, perhaps by reducing or eliminating the restrictions on supply (onerous licensing requirements), and reducing the excess demand (overcriminalization). Also worth considering is whether an inquisitorial system (as in France) might be better than the adversarial system.