Thanks for reading, and for responding, Edd.

I think most people who want to change a particular power dynamic are usually motivated by a desire for justice: they want a level playing field. That’s actually why I became a lawyer in the first place: I wanted to even up the odds in a system that was stacked against defendants. I wanted to be a public defender.

When you get arrested, the police, the prosecutors, the probation and parole officers, and even sometimes the judges, are powerful forces arrayed against you. The only person on your side, besides your family, is your lawyer.

I strongly believed, and still do, that everyone is entitled to counsel when their freedom is at stake. If you have the money, you hire your own attorney. But if you don’t, the state provides one. That “right to counsel” rule came about because someone wanted to change the power structure so that everyone accused of a jailable offense had access to representation. It was an attempt to level the playing field.

We’ve been backsliding in America for some time now in terms of defendant’s rights. When I began practicing, the primary reason for setting bail was to insure the defendant’s appearance at trial. I represented many people with long records who’d always shown up for their court dates. Most of those people were released on their own recognizance. Granted, these were probably non-violent offenses, but today those people would be held in lieu of bail. It’s a travesty against “innocent until proven guilty. I could go on and on about this, but I’ll spare you. Maybe it will be my next Medium article!

My argument about “accuser” language is, at heart, the same level-playing-field argument. All victims of crimes should be treated equally, no matter the crime.

Thanks again for your thoughtful comment!