Agreed for the most part. Often times where one sees poorer representation (notice I didn't say ineffective assistance of counsel.....) of criminal defendants it's not a PD handling the case but a court-appointed private practitioner. The majority (certainly not all mind you) of PDs are hard-working and good attorneys. I agree with this as well but would add that there is also a shortage of funds for PDs, which produces the same plea bargain effect. I know here in Georgia we're having awfully difficult time funding PDs offices.
My statement was not intended to impugn the many good, dedicated public defenders. It was meant more to point at this:
Courts need to track "pooled", or court-appointed cases, more carefully. In some jurisdictions where pay rates are low, attorneys will accept far too many files, in ana effort to make a decent living. In NJ, both public defenders and pool attorneys are paid reasonably well. I've always been upset at PD funding, but more for the way the system is abused than for lack of public funding. In NJ, the PDs refused to collect fees & payments personally, & generally are unhelpful in funding their own office, perhaps out of some sense of misguided loyalty to their clients, who often view them as agents of the state, while showing up for court in flash cars & clothing, claiming to be indigent.
True. But nobody is going to put your ass in jail unless you spend a month or longer eating and sleeping at the Ritz.
...when curiously the punishment for stealing yourself some free food and accommodation would be to be given some free food and accommodation.