3 ms·

Suppose someone is arrested for a crime they didn't commit, bail is set, they get a bail bond, they show up to court and are acquitted. The fees they pay on tha

Suppose someone is arrested for a crime they didn't commit, bail is set, they get a bail bond, they show up to court and are acquitted. The fees they pay on that bond are a de facto fine. This weakens juries' power to acquit and gives false arrests teeth. One way to improve things would be to allow juries to rule, not just that a criminal case wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt, but that it was weak enough that no arrest should have been made; and in that case, make the government liable for bail bond fees, rather than the defendant.

mindslight 11y ago
Why bother creating a third outcome? If a defendant is found not guilty, then the expenses and time of arrest/imprisonment/trial are damages and they should be fully compensated. Anything less is externalizing the cost of policing onto innocent victims, accompanied by all the usual problems from moral hazard.
rmah 11y ago
Many states do just that. This is called the "Grand Jury" system. Every case is brought before a Grand Jury to determine if enough evidence exists for the case to go to trial.
- MaysonL 11y ago
  And, as the saying goes, whomever the prosecutor wants indicted by the grand jury, up to and including a ham sandwich, will get indicted. Exceptions to this rule fall into the man bites dog category.
  - Crito 11y ago
    True of Federal grand juries. Less so of state grand juries.
aqme28 11y ago
A similar but worse situation: Someone is arrested for a crime they didn't commit. Bail is set far above their ability to pay. A year later while awaiting trial, they are given the option to accept a plea deal for time served and a criminal record, or wait another year for the trial to take place.
bsder 11y ago
What you are asking for is this: If you are found "not guilty" in a criminal trial, the state should have to pay all your costs. I agree. It would disincentivize prosecutors from trying to hammer people with marginal cases. Civil cases are a different story.

mindslight 11y ago

Why bother creating a third outcome? If a defendant is found not guilty, then the expenses and time of arrest/imprisonment/trial are damages and they should be fully compensated. Anything less is externalizing the cost of policing onto innocent victims, accompanied by all the usual problems from moral hazard.

rmah 11y ago

Many states do just that. This is called the "Grand Jury" system. Every case is brought before a Grand Jury to determine if enough evidence exists for the case to go to trial.

MaysonL 11y ago
And, as the saying goes, whomever the prosecutor wants indicted by the grand jury, up to and including a ham sandwich, will get indicted. Exceptions to this rule fall into the man bites dog category.
- Crito 11y ago
  True of Federal grand juries. Less so of state grand juries.

aqme28 11y ago

A similar but worse situation: Someone is arrested for a crime they didn't commit. Bail is set far above their ability to pay. A year later while awaiting trial, they are given the option to accept a plea deal for time served and a criminal record, or wait another year for the trial to take place.

bsder 11y ago

What you are asking for is this: If you are found "not guilty" in a criminal trial, the state should have to pay all your costs. I agree. It would disincentivize prosecutors from trying to hammer people with marginal cases. Civil cases are a different story.