delldude: I generally agree with your premise; I just disagree with your proposed solution.
Overworked, underpaid public defenders' clients probably don't get the same breaks afforded to the criminals who can pay $$$ to high-priced criminal defense attorneys. Those overworked, underpaid PDs often don't have enough time or resources to devote to each client like they should.
And you're right - lawyers in private practice generally enjoy much higher incomes than their public employee counterparts.
But this comment of yours: "You come across as a very selfish individual regarding your reaction to my comments on donating some of ones time to their respective community" reveals how little you know about what I do. I'd be committing malpractice to advise you on a jaywalking ticket or a public intox arrest, let alone a serious misdemeanor or felony indictment. I know my limitations. What I do have is money, and deficiencies in the criminal justice system can be better remedied by taxing me and employing competent lawyers to fix the problem (the problem we agree on).
Selfish? Nope. I took a class in criminal law and an evidence class in my first year, and that was almost 40 years ago. My JD didn't require that I learn criminal procedure (that was an elective) and since I wasn't planning to work any criminal cases (neither DA or defense), I didn't learn how to conduct a criminal trial. My continuing legal education requirements have never prepared me for criminal defense work.
"Donating some of one's time?" What? Your earlier post said "should be required to do public defender work . . . " Since when is "required" the same as "donate"?
There are hundreds of thousands of lawyers in this country who would be similarly incompetent at criminal defense work.
Perhaps what you meant to post earlier was "Highly-paid CRIMINAL DEFENSE lawyers should be required to do public defender pro bono work in lieu of their comfortable lifestyle and salary." At least that wouldn't result in criminal convictions due to "ineffective counsel" as my hypothetical clients would suffer.
I'll admit to a weak analogy, owing to my lack of knowledge about aircraft maintenance. Glenn's analogy appears more sound. I would prefer that the mechanic who works on the engine before my next flight not be a sheet metal expert who hasn't touched an engine since they graduated from Lincoln Tech and passed the licensing exam 30 years ago.
How about this one: Psychiatrists go to medical school just like all the other doctors. Should middle-age shrinks be conscripted to work in county general emergency rooms to help with unmet needs? After all, a doctor is a doctor, right? My guess is that some poorly-funded public hospitals with overworked, underpaid ER docs don't produce the same positive outcomes as the well-funded "desirable" hospitals in the same metro areas.
Yes, the world would be a much better place if more people donated their time (and more money) to helping those who need help. But I strongly disagree that forcing people to work outside of their area of expertise would be an improvement. In my view, better to tax the successful (the monetary successful) and use that money to hire and train competent people to alleviate those societal failures. Fortunately, I get to determine what activities fulfill my pro bono requirements without input from others.
Back to the Glenn's original point - I'm not in favor of releasing known violent individuals while they're awaiting trial or a guilty plea. But people accused of nonviolent offenses? Lower bail or even release on recognizance (with no cash required) is ok with me.