And this should not be the case!

Those in need of a public defender should have their defence "fully" funded and have access to the same unlimited resources available to the prosecution.Will this prove to be expensive? Yes but how do we set a price on justice? A public defence should include all the resources that are available to the prosecution!

They who can afford their own defence within the proposed caps are not the issue here.The issue here is a clear and present disparity within the "public defender" system.

The prosecution should not have an unlimited financial advantage over the accused.Today,the prosecution has that advantage over they who are forced to rely on a public defence.If and when a maximum cap has been set for the prosecution as well as the defence,both would have an equal access to the resources needed to present their arguments.Without such a system in place,the advantage is always skewed in favor of the prosecution and it's unlimited resources!

The system I propose need not be left up to the legislature [lawyers] who would be unlikely to pass such a measure.The SC could and should rule in favor of justice for all on an equal playing field.Without setting limits on how much these adversaries may spend at trial,there can be no real justice.We can and should do better,it's good to dream,now and then,dreams come true!

In the words of Robert F. Kennedy : I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?