Ms. Peng's client is most certainly not the State. As a public defense attorney, her clients truly are the accused unable to retain private legal services - the indigent. As Ms. Peng argues, the service provided by public defenders is a constitutional right, not to mention one of the fundamental elements in a system designed to provide for adequate and universal representation. That the State issues her salary is a direct result of the constitutionality of the services public defense offices provide, and is the mandated prerogative of the State in due compliance with the Constitution. Ms. Peng has granted us an insider view of what is becoming an increasingly slippery slope. We cannot eschew the rightful defense of any group, no matter how "marginalized," and presume in the same breath that those criteria will never broaden or change. Nor can we expect legal disenfranchisement, and an inevitable increase in unjust incarceration, to resolve anything.

I'm trying to outline the problem that the State is not interested in funding those public defense offices. They are doing the absolute minimum required by the Constitution. In contrast, look how well-funded and heavily-equipped are the police and other law enforcement agencies.

She, actually,

The author's name is Tina Peng.

She.

LOL, not everyone is a mercenary.