NO NEED FOR TAXPAYERS TO PAY FOR THEIR DEFENSE

Two articles recently appeared in The News-Times. The first was around April
19 and concerned a 17-year-old schoolboy who was arrested for rolling over
his recently purchased pickup truck, which contained eight occupants: five
in the back of the pickup and three in the cab, including himself. He was
charged with DWI. The parents let it be known that their son was an "honor
student." The court appointed lawyer stated that his client had used "poor
judgment." I believe that this youngster didn't use any judgment at all.

The second article appeared around June 4 concerning an older man who was
arrested for carrying illegal drugs. The News-Times stated that this man was
employed and in addition owned a house, but was also represented by a
court-appointed lawyer.

There is a similarity regarding the arrest of these two individuals. The
17-year-old minor (for whom the parents are still responsible) and the adult
who is employed and owns a home are both represented by a public defender.
Why does the taxpayer have to bear the expense of providing a public
defender for their legal defense? If this young man purchased his own
vehicle (as stated by The News-Times), then let him or his parents pay for
his legal defense.

In addition, if the adult arrested for illegal possession of drugs has a job
and owns a home, let him pay for his own legal defense, even if he has to
borrow the money.

These individuals committed irresponsible and unlawful acts. They both
should be financially responsible and not the taxpayers.