Isn't it expected that the government is acting in society's interest though? Whether or not that is the case in reality, bringing up the fact that the government has greater resources than citizens like this feels like it's missing the point, and that the actual problem is in how the government is deciding what cases to prosecute.
It is a problem. The defendant's right to counsel should be the right to counsel that is, at least in theory, equipped with the same tools as the prosecutor. When there are huge power disparities, governments become mobs. See: Aaron Swartz.
There are always huge disparities; a large number (possibly a majority) of people prosecuted by the government are driven to bankrupcy, regardless of the outcome.
If the government can afford a crime lab, expert witnesses and a team of prosecutors then why not the equal amount for public defense? Then they can do a cost-benefit analysis whether it's really worth to indict someone even though they have to pay for their defense. It's essentially the problem of only optimizing to keep false negatives low but ignoring false positives.
This should be mandated for all litigation - both sides must split any funds used in the case equally, otherwise by definition it isn't a fair trial. This is one of many many ways the American justice system is completely corrupt (not singling out US, this is just where I live and what I know)
How on earth could you easily enforce that though? Easy to quietly pay some private investigator or specialist to do some expensive or hard work in evidence gathering or analysis, and then pretend it was easier and cheaper to do than it really was. I agree that on principle it should be a rule though, so yes, absolutely agree.
Government prosecutors tend to have a very limited interest in any one case. Generally speaking if they put up any kind of fight it’s the defense that’s willing to outspend the prosecution due to the incentives involved.
That said, the overwhelming majority of defendants chose not to defend themselves.
