4 ms·
I agree that when there is no time to do anything for the case, that this should be a strong aspect of a challenge to a conviction. I don't know about the same
by Latteland 8y ago
I agree that when there is no time to do anything for the case, that this should be a strong aspect of a challenge to a conviction. I don't know about the same budget though, what about OJ Simpson's huge defense team vs the state.
Those people basically have no defense, and I think if there is no budget for adequate defense, then you cannot prosecute them. I need to find out how my own large city fares in this scenario of public defender time.
- burtonator 8y agoTrue.. the reverse is true too. If a defendant wants to spend more than the state the defendant should be required to make the difference vs they are spending.
- AnthonyMouse 8y agoThen the state has the incentive to fund the prosecutor's office to 0% because they can make defendants pay for it as soon as they want to defend themselves at all, and prosecutors get the incentive to create massive administrative burdens because every dollar a defendant spends dealing with their obstructionism is another dollar they get from the defendant. You also screw over the poor because now their defense costs are doubled (on top of the obstructionism) when they couldn't afford them to begin with. And if a defendant spends $50,000 to successfully prove that it was someone else, now they have to pay $50,000 to the prosecutor's office for falsely accusing them. Unless the prosecutor only gets the money if they win, in which case we get a whole new set of problematic incentives on the other side (make up evidence to win major cases or your office goes bankrupt), and we're back to the original problem where the rich get away with everything by outspending the government and then don't have to pay because they got away with it.