There are so many assumptions to that, but I feel like we'd just be rehashing the same old points again and again.

I understand where this theory comes from. I've seen some of the papers promoting it. But it defies actual perception.

Example:

"...company has an imperative to defend us. If it does not, it will lose customers."

This is probably false, and the REVERSE is probably true. I know that seems illogical, but thats how people are. Few people see themselves as a "criminal", and they rarely try and put themselves in the defendant's shoes. What actually happens is far from supporting public defenders for protecting a defendants rights; instead its the issuing of death threats and the harrassment of not only witnesses, but the defender's family as well. Oddly enough, most people HATE criminals. And assume you are a criminal if you are brought into court.

So when you argue that a company will lose customers for not defending someone, or for defending someone poorly, I'm not convinced. In fact, a successful defense could cost them millions of customers, as they earn a reputation for "helping badguys".

Different example; no one cares that products are made in china through child labor. No one cares about blood diamonds. More on point, no one cares about the rights of people in prison (you should see some of the comments on articles of prison hunger strikes)

But it doesnt stop there. We're in the commercial world, so even assuming dropping defendants or poorly defending them was bad for business, that doesnt really mean much. Through advertising, they could create a larger demand; or cloud the issue of the 'bad business practice'.

Theres a million more problems, but im bar studying atm.
------

Last point: We currently live in a pretty good system. Even children understand our system of checks and balances, no matter how flawed they might be. When something breaks, we know what to do to fix it (go to court, petition congressman, etc). Theres a simplicity there that makes things easy, even if they arent so great right now.

Any system of governing (or whatever) that seeks to replace this system has its work cut out for it. Its not enough to say "other systems can work". Of course they could. The question is whether they'd work better, but to do that you have to build more than the airy concept that the economists currently have.