5 ms·

No need to make it optional. If the state can't convict on all counts, you should get full compensation for all expenses, including your legal bills, any time s

No need to make it optional. If the state can't convict on all counts, you should get full compensation for all expenses, including your legal bills, any time spent in prison, lost income, etc. In a case like this it would be millions of dollars, maybe tens of millions. Of course, this case probably wouldn't have happened in the first place if that was the way prosecutions worked... Most criminal cases are open-and-shut deals where the defendant is clearly guilty, so this wouldn't change much on average. But it would ensure that 1) prosecutors only prosecute what they can actually prove, 2) innocent peoples' lives aren't destroyed.

lazide 2y ago
Can you imagine the public angst around the OJ trial if THAT was what happened?
- petertodd 2y ago
  I'd rather people like OJ get some money out of a botched prosecution than the alternative. Most likely, we'd see a lot less botched prosecutions.
  - mywittyname 2y ago
    How many botched prosecutions are there? Most have a 90%+ conviction rate because normal people can't stand up to professional interrogation. Even innocent people can incriminate themselves to the point where it isn't worth the risk of trial, so they plead to a lesser offense. Spend thousands going to court and possible spending 5 years in jail vs. plead out for probation. The fact that going to court and winning might see you get legal fees plus a bit of money back doesn't change the calculus -- the worst case outcome is still prison.
    - petertodd 2y ago
      It certainly changes the calculus: it's much easier to get a lawyer willing to work on contingency if there is a financial reward for winning. In civil cases it's quite common for lawyers to work on contingency because so many civil cases are obviously winnable, and have an immediate payout. Of course, in practice what really would happen is it would be far less common for prosecutors to prosecute people when there isn't a solid case against them. If what I'm suggesting was how criminal cases worked, I doubt that Backpage would have been charged at all. Note that I also think that plea deals should be much less common, or even totally banned.
- webspinner 2y ago
  Simpson would be more deserving of it than most anyone.
mywittyname 2y ago
This is one of those things that sounds good in theory, but is terrible in practice. It would incentivize prosecution to avoid court at all costs. Which means de facto immunity for wealthy people who can easily afford to go to court. And it will probably make law enforcement even worse about railroading people who can't afford any legal representation.
- petertodd 2y ago
  > It would incentivize prosecution to avoid court at all costs. Their job is to prosecute. Their only option is to pick cases that can be won. Which isn't hard, as the average person who is charged with some criminal act is not only guilty, but clearly guilty. > Which means de facto immunity for wealthy people who can easily afford to go to court. Money can't make a guilty man innocent. If you've actually done something wrong and there is evidence against you, the prosecution should have no qualms about prosecuting. In rare cases bad luck might lead to a payout due to a botched case or other unusual circumstance. But governments have enough money to self-insure for rare cases like that. It probably wouldn't even be a once-in-a-career event for the average prosecutor. > And it will probably make law enforcement even worse about railroading people who can't afford any legal representation. Rather the opposite: since full compensation is guaranteed if you win, it would be much easier to get a lawyer to work on contingency if you can convince them you are innocent. Right now that is very hard because even if you win, it's quite difficult to get the state to pay your legal bills so lawyers have no incentive to help you.
  - wheelerwj 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - mindslight 2y ago
      Funny. OP sounds like someone who has experience with the justice system to me. Most everyone else isn't so painfully aware of the personal collateral damage the justice system causes.
    - 2y ago
gnicholas 2y ago
We have a very high bar for guilt in criminal trials. This is because we would rather have many guilty people go free than send an innocent person to prison (there are still mistakes, of course). Given this situation, it wouldn’t make sense to assume anyone who is not convicted on even one count is actually innocent.
- petertodd 2y ago
  > We have a very high bar for guilt in criminal trials. If we do, then my suggestion should be easy to implement and will only impact a tiny minority of cases. Of course, in this case it's pretty clear that the prosecution made up a bunch of charges that they knew they'd lose on to try to drain the resources of the people they were charging, as well as punish them pre-emptively. The prosecution also clearly broke the rules in other ways, eg by getting a mistrial when they kept on bringing up sex trafficking, a crime the Backpage founders simply weren't charged with. There are plenty of actual criminals in the world that need to be prosecuted. This case is clearly a politically motivated exception.
  - gnicholas 2y ago
    Sounds like a false dichotomy between "cases that will always result in guilty verdicts" and "cases that the prosecution knew they'd lose but brought anyway to drain resources". You don't seem to recognize that there are many, many cases that could go either way, based on how judges rule about evidentiary matters, what the composition of the jury is, etc. As someone who was a lawyer for years, and who has served on a jury, I have seen the ways that things can evolve in unexpected ways. IMO the vast majority of cases could go either way, depending on how rulings and jury composition turn out. Any system that doles out taxpayer money whenever the prosecution doesn't run the table is utterly naive. It would result in less prosecution, more criminals going free, and more victimization by people we didn't lock up.
    - iraqmtpizza 2y ago
      Yeah, cause then prosecutors would actually have to look for exculpatory evidence before charging instead of just sitting on their asses and relying on juries assuming guilt (because why else would someone be on trial?)
MRtecno98 2y ago
To add to what other people said: we're talking about criminal trials, here "on average" isn't enough. Criminal procedure requires such a high standard of certainty(proving without a reasonable doubt, unanimity of jurors) because unlike civil trials it actually sends people to jail. So being right "on average" isn't enough because we can't afford to punish innocent people, we would rather not punish a guilty person than wrongfully punish an innocent one.
lupusreal 2y ago
In the trial where somebody is accused of first degree murder and they are instead convicted of second degree murder, the murderer deserves all that compensation? You haven't thought this out well.

lazide 2y ago

Can you imagine the public angst around the OJ trial if THAT was what happened?

petertodd 2y ago
I'd rather people like OJ get some money out of a botched prosecution than the alternative. Most likely, we'd see a lot less botched prosecutions.
- mywittyname 2y ago
  How many botched prosecutions are there? Most have a 90%+ conviction rate because normal people can't stand up to professional interrogation. Even innocent people can incriminate themselves to the point where it isn't worth the risk of trial, so they plead to a lesser offense. Spend thousands going to court and possible spending 5 years in jail vs. plead out for probation. The fact that going to court and winning might see you get legal fees plus a bit of money back doesn't change the calculus -- the worst case outcome is still prison.
  - petertodd 2y ago
    It certainly changes the calculus: it's much easier to get a lawyer willing to work on contingency if there is a financial reward for winning. In civil cases it's quite common for lawyers to work on contingency because so many civil cases are obviously winnable, and have an immediate payout. Of course, in practice what really would happen is it would be far less common for prosecutors to prosecute people when there isn't a solid case against them. If what I'm suggesting was how criminal cases worked, I doubt that Backpage would have been charged at all. Note that I also think that plea deals should be much less common, or even totally banned.
webspinner 2y ago
Simpson would be more deserving of it than most anyone.

mywittyname 2y ago

This is one of those things that sounds good in theory, but is terrible in practice. It would incentivize prosecution to avoid court at all costs. Which means de facto immunity for wealthy people who can easily afford to go to court. And it will probably make law enforcement even worse about railroading people who can't afford any legal representation.

petertodd 2y ago
> It would incentivize prosecution to avoid court at all costs. Their job is to prosecute. Their only option is to pick cases that can be won. Which isn't hard, as the average person who is charged with some criminal act is not only guilty, but clearly guilty. > Which means de facto immunity for wealthy people who can easily afford to go to court. Money can't make a guilty man innocent. If you've actually done something wrong and there is evidence against you, the prosecution should have no qualms about prosecuting. In rare cases bad luck might lead to a payout due to a botched case or other unusual circumstance. But governments have enough money to self-insure for rare cases like that. It probably wouldn't even be a once-in-a-career event for the average prosecutor. > And it will probably make law enforcement even worse about railroading people who can't afford any legal representation. Rather the opposite: since full compensation is guaranteed if you win, it would be much easier to get a lawyer to work on contingency if you can convince them you are innocent. Right now that is very hard because even if you win, it's quite difficult to get the state to pay your legal bills so lawyers have no incentive to help you.
- wheelerwj 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - mindslight 2y ago
    Funny. OP sounds like someone who has experience with the justice system to me. Most everyone else isn't so painfully aware of the personal collateral damage the justice system causes.
  - 2y ago

gnicholas 2y ago

We have a very high bar for guilt in criminal trials. This is because we would rather have many guilty people go free than send an innocent person to prison (there are still mistakes, of course). Given this situation, it wouldn’t make sense to assume anyone who is not convicted on even one count is actually innocent.

petertodd 2y ago
> We have a very high bar for guilt in criminal trials. If we do, then my suggestion should be easy to implement and will only impact a tiny minority of cases. Of course, in this case it's pretty clear that the prosecution made up a bunch of charges that they knew they'd lose on to try to drain the resources of the people they were charging, as well as punish them pre-emptively. The prosecution also clearly broke the rules in other ways, eg by getting a mistrial when they kept on bringing up sex trafficking, a crime the Backpage founders simply weren't charged with. There are plenty of actual criminals in the world that need to be prosecuted. This case is clearly a politically motivated exception.
- gnicholas 2y ago
  Sounds like a false dichotomy between "cases that will always result in guilty verdicts" and "cases that the prosecution knew they'd lose but brought anyway to drain resources". You don't seem to recognize that there are many, many cases that could go either way, based on how judges rule about evidentiary matters, what the composition of the jury is, etc. As someone who was a lawyer for years, and who has served on a jury, I have seen the ways that things can evolve in unexpected ways. IMO the vast majority of cases could go either way, depending on how rulings and jury composition turn out. Any system that doles out taxpayer money whenever the prosecution doesn't run the table is utterly naive. It would result in less prosecution, more criminals going free, and more victimization by people we didn't lock up.
  - iraqmtpizza 2y ago
    Yeah, cause then prosecutors would actually have to look for exculpatory evidence before charging instead of just sitting on their asses and relying on juries assuming guilt (because why else would someone be on trial?)

MRtecno98 2y ago

To add to what other people said: we're talking about criminal trials, here "on average" isn't enough. Criminal procedure requires such a high standard of certainty(proving without a reasonable doubt, unanimity of jurors) because unlike civil trials it actually sends people to jail. So being right "on average" isn't enough because we can't afford to punish innocent people, we would rather not punish a guilty person than wrongfully punish an innocent one.

lupusreal 2y ago

In the trial where somebody is accused of first degree murder and they are instead convicted of second degree murder, the murderer deserves all that compensation? You haven't thought this out well.