3 ms·

That's not an issue at all, if the government just acts as a lender to whoever is going to lose. That also has the added bonus of making people think twice abo

by DasIch 11y ago

That's not an issue at all, if the government just acts as a lender to whoever is going to lose. That also has the added bonus of making people think twice about engaging people in civil suits and prevents people and bad prosecutors from using the legal system for blackmail.

Coding_Cat 11y ago
Well, if you go with a "loser pays" system you run into the issue of false convictions and economic-disparity again. If I were to barely break even at the end of each month, and was tried for a crime I didn't commit I might still consider pleading guilty because the actual punishment would be less than the results of the financial penalty incurred by defending yourself and losing. If I were rich enough to easily pay the fees should I lose, I would risk it.
- DasIch 11y ago
  That's certainly a problem but it's a problem that would impact society overall negatively. Therefore I think it would be reasonable to weaken the "loser pays" system slightly, so that a balance between actual punishment and financial penalty is reached that prevents the latter from becoming an incentive to plead guilty. This could simply be done by having the government pay in these cases.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  For criminal cases, that probably depends on the interest and repayment terms. If its means-contingent repayment without usurious interest, the incentive to plea guilty to avoid the cost of defense would be minimized, though the public expense would, correspondingly, be greater. OTOH, the expense would be going to assure that the guilty, and only the guilty, were punished and the government was less able to get away with punishing the poor-but-innocent to prevent a public image of dealing with problems while failing to actually get the guilty, so there is a public benefit (in addition to "protecting the rights of the accused") that comes from that public expense.

by DasIch 11y ago

Coding_Cat 11y ago

Well, if you go with a "loser pays" system you run into the issue of false convictions and economic-disparity again. If I were to barely break even at the end of each month, and was tried for a crime I didn't commit I might still consider pleading guilty because the actual punishment would be less than the results of the financial penalty incurred by defending yourself and losing. If I were rich enough to easily pay the fees should I lose, I would risk it.

DasIch 11y ago
That's certainly a problem but it's a problem that would impact society overall negatively. Therefore I think it would be reasonable to weaken the "loser pays" system slightly, so that a balance between actual punishment and financial penalty is reached that prevents the latter from becoming an incentive to plead guilty. This could simply be done by having the government pay in these cases.
dragonwriter 11y ago
For criminal cases, that probably depends on the interest and repayment terms. If its means-contingent repayment without usurious interest, the incentive to plea guilty to avoid the cost of defense would be minimized, though the public expense would, correspondingly, be greater. OTOH, the expense would be going to assure that the guilty, and only the guilty, were punished and the government was less able to get away with punishing the poor-but-innocent to prevent a public image of dealing with problems while failing to actually get the guilty, so there is a public benefit (in addition to "protecting the rights of the accused") that comes from that public expense.