Shouldn’t it be the default and not require the suspect/subject to actually ask for one? Has there ever been any attempt to make that the norm in any countries? I think the only question should be “do you have your own lawyer you like to use, or are you happy enough with the court-appointed one?”
I’m not even sure opting out should be allowed, but I’m open to hearing reasons why that would be a bad system, or indeed a worse system than the one most countries seem to have now. So many miscarriages of justice could have been easily avoided.
I am not a lawyer. (IANAL)
You have a lot of legal right you may or may not choose to exercise. For example, if you have the right to own firearms they don’t issue you a firearm just because you haven’t purchased one yet.
If I recall it right, there wasn’t always the concept of a public defender who could represent someone even if they couldn’t afford a lawyer. You had to already have a lawyer in order to even use that right. This was eventually changed and resulted in the creation of public defenders.
From what I have heard, public defenders are really overworked and spread thin, so you may want to have a lawyer setup to represent you if you ever get into trouble with the law. I have also heard it’s good to know several lawyers as the one who can help you draft a will is different than the one to help you purchase real estate and the one to keep you out of jail.
Also, you are not guaranteed a free lawyer. To be appointed a public defender you have to apply for one and prove your income; over a certain amount and you’re expected to hire your own lawyer.
The court can’t deny you access to a lawyer, but they don’t have to give you one if you can afford your own.