4 ms·
That is a possible outcome. Like I said though, with courtrooms being adversarial one side is incentivized to use any useful tool against the other. If the de
by ratliffchrisb 10y ago
That is a possible outcome.
Like I said though, with courtrooms being adversarial one side is incentivized to use any useful tool against the other. If the defense can't afford it and therefore doesn't use it, it becomes less likely the prosecution will use it then too. Maybe to counteract this I have to subsidize the cost of those using it for defense.
It is far to early to say for certain, but in order to generate better juror recommendations data is needed, I want as many people using it as possible to get data.
- angersock 10y agoIf the defense can't afford it and therefore doesn't use it, it becomes less likely the prosecution will use it then too. That's exceptionally unlikely, I think. The prosecution's job is to win, whatever the cost--that appears to be the current mode of operation in the US, anyways.
- ratliffchrisb 10y agoEven so, I do have some benefit to having defense attorneys use it. I'll get more data on jurors. Having people pay what they will or can isn't a new idea. If the defense can't pay an individual license may be cheap, while an office license could be exorbitant if the DA will pay through the nose. The main point of the last post is that I gain nothing if they don't use it, but if anyone is paying for it I still gain from other free users. As I mentioned the I think system is suboptimal, I think this can improve it though. I'm not a jerk who would screw the Justice system for a buck, I really do think this can improve things. I don't think the possibility that it might hurt is reason enough not to try.
- angersock 10y agoMaybe make it free for public defenders. Lord knows they could use the help.