3 ms·

Why not make the jurisdiction that the prosecutor works for responsible for paying attorney fees if the person is acquitted? They were sure enough to seriously

Why not make the jurisdiction that the prosecutor works for responsible for paying attorney fees if the person is acquitted? They were sure enough to seriously upset and damage a person's life when they pressed charges, and they better be willing to at least cover the cost of a defense when they're wrong.

kiallmacinnes 13y ago
I totally agree - but this does have downsides too, prosecutors will be fired if their loose rate (i.e. cost) is too high, which will lead to only prosecuting guaranteed wins. I still think that's a better system though...
- DrewRWx 13y ago
  It would also ramp up the already absurd focus on quick, cheap plea bargains.
  - DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
    One thing to think about is that it lowers the cost of a defense if you're relatively sure you'll win. Under the current system, a plea bargain is something like "Take 2 years in jail and pay $50-100k less or face 10 years in jail at trial, where you probably can't even afford a real defense." Under the new system, a plea bargain would have to offer considerably more to the point it's obviously problematic, because acquitted defendants wouldn't still be out the money required to beat the system. Further, it's likely poor people will have better access to top notch lawyers if the lawyer can expect to recoup their cost from the state (rather than just not being paid by the poor person).
    - mjmahone17 13y ago
      The other nice thing: you could actually get lawyers to work on the grounds of "you only pay if we win" for criminal cases. This would, presumably, mean "state-provided" defense lawyers would be the best available, as opposed to whoever they can scrounge up as a public defender. Also, presumably, the cost of good legal defense should be less than the $20,000 cost/year for incarceration.
  - bsder 13y ago
    Why? Defense attorneys would have no incentive to settle when they would get paid far more for winning the case.
- DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
  I mean, it creates some perverse incentives, such as giving a financial reason to withhold evidence from the defense. Of course, you could require that a) there's a fine for being caught at that and b) the department also has to pay for the appeal and initial case and prepay for any retrials. Overall, I think it would be a large improvement, though.
- bsder 13y ago
  > which will lead to only prosecuting guaranteed wins. Um, good? Marginal cases probably shouldn't be prosecuted unless there is a non-trivial public value to doing so. I'm also a big fan of the fact that prosecutors should have no discretion in terms of jury makeup. If you can't make your case without stacking the deck, you should lose.
kiallmacinnes 13y ago
I totally agree - but this does have downsides too, prosecutors will be fired if their loose rate (i.e. cost) is too high, which will lead to only prosecuting guaranteed wins. I still think that's a better system though...
gamblor956 13y ago
Because an acquittal is not a finding of innocence. It is merely a finding that a person was not determined guilty to the level required by law, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt. It is entirely possible for everyone to be "pretty sure" that a defendant is guilty but for the defendant to walk simply because they couldn't cross the evidentiary threshold. In those rare instances where actual innocence are found, the jurisdiction does end up paying for the defendant's attorneys fees, and more, as a result of the civil lawsuit the defendant inevitably files.
- kevincrane 13y ago
  > Because an acquittal is not a finding of innocence. It is merely a finding that a person was not determined guilty to the level required by law If you're innocent until proven guilty, and they never prove you guilty....I'd call you innocent.
  - gamblor956 13y ago
    "Innocent until proven guilty" is simply an admonishment given to juries because many law-and-order types assume that defendants are guilty simply because they are being tried. Legally, a person is simply "not guilty" unless and until they are proven guilty. "Innocence" is a specific legal term which means that person is not only "not guilty" but further that there is sufficient proof that they did not commit the crime alleged.
    - kevincrane 13y ago
      Fair enough, that actually all sounds right to me. Like when defendants receive a verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty."

kiallmacinnes 13y ago

I totally agree - but this does have downsides too, prosecutors will be fired if their loose rate (i.e. cost) is too high, which will lead to only prosecuting guaranteed wins. I still think that's a better system though...

DrewRWx 13y ago
It would also ramp up the already absurd focus on quick, cheap plea bargains.
- DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
  One thing to think about is that it lowers the cost of a defense if you're relatively sure you'll win. Under the current system, a plea bargain is something like "Take 2 years in jail and pay $50-100k less or face 10 years in jail at trial, where you probably can't even afford a real defense." Under the new system, a plea bargain would have to offer considerably more to the point it's obviously problematic, because acquitted defendants wouldn't still be out the money required to beat the system. Further, it's likely poor people will have better access to top notch lawyers if the lawyer can expect to recoup their cost from the state (rather than just not being paid by the poor person).
  - mjmahone17 13y ago
    The other nice thing: you could actually get lawyers to work on the grounds of "you only pay if we win" for criminal cases. This would, presumably, mean "state-provided" defense lawyers would be the best available, as opposed to whoever they can scrounge up as a public defender. Also, presumably, the cost of good legal defense should be less than the $20,000 cost/year for incarceration.
- bsder 13y ago
  Why? Defense attorneys would have no incentive to settle when they would get paid far more for winning the case.
DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
I mean, it creates some perverse incentives, such as giving a financial reason to withhold evidence from the defense. Of course, you could require that a) there's a fine for being caught at that and b) the department also has to pay for the appeal and initial case and prepay for any retrials. Overall, I think it would be a large improvement, though.
bsder 13y ago
> which will lead to only prosecuting guaranteed wins. Um, good? Marginal cases probably shouldn't be prosecuted unless there is a non-trivial public value to doing so. I'm also a big fan of the fact that prosecutors should have no discretion in terms of jury makeup. If you can't make your case without stacking the deck, you should lose.

kiallmacinnes 13y ago

gamblor956 13y ago

Because an acquittal is not a finding of innocence. It is merely a finding that a person was not determined guilty to the level required by law, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt. It is entirely possible for everyone to be "pretty sure" that a defendant is guilty but for the defendant to walk simply because they couldn't cross the evidentiary threshold. In those rare instances where actual innocence are found, the jurisdiction does end up paying for the defendant's attorneys fees, and more, as a result of the civil lawsuit the defendant inevitably files.

kevincrane 13y ago
> Because an acquittal is not a finding of innocence. It is merely a finding that a person was not determined guilty to the level required by law If you're innocent until proven guilty, and they never prove you guilty....I'd call you innocent.
- gamblor956 13y ago
  "Innocent until proven guilty" is simply an admonishment given to juries because many law-and-order types assume that defendants are guilty simply because they are being tried. Legally, a person is simply "not guilty" unless and until they are proven guilty. "Innocence" is a specific legal term which means that person is not only "not guilty" but further that there is sufficient proof that they did not commit the crime alleged.
  - kevincrane 13y ago
    Fair enough, that actually all sounds right to me. Like when defendants receive a verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty."