Prosecution and defense: Leveling the playing field

[JohnStOnge]

As we all know, the prosecution in a criminal case almost always has an advantage in terms of resources over the defendant. The State almost always has more resources to devote to prosecution than the defendant has to devote to defense. In most cases, the imbalance is extreme. Many people lack the resources to mount an effective defense at all.

The solution: Require that, if a person is charged with a crime then aquitted, the State (or Federal Gover ment if it's a Federal Case), must pay the defendant's legal fees including fees for things like expert witnesses. Then defense attorneys could look at cases and take them on a contingency basis. They could look and say, "You know, if we spend the time and money we will almost certainly win this" and know that if they win they will get paid.

Also, forfeiture laws that allow government to sieze a defendant's assets before that defendant is either convicted or pleads guilty should be eliminated. That's a whole 'nuther subject but it's a ridiculous situation right now.

Really. That's the way it should be.

[dbackjon]

Interesting idea - there would need to be limits/reasonableness on fees (i.e. $500 for a hour testimony by a doctor, etc).

[JayJ79]

Okay, but if a person is CONVICTED of the crime, then they should have to pay all the costs of the prosecution.

Though a good percentage of criminals are unemployed schmucks who will never actually pay those expenses anyway, so that's not fair.

[JohnStOnge]

Okay, but if a person is CONVICTED of the crime, then they should have to pay all the costs of the prosecution.

Though a good percentage of criminals are unemployed schmucks who will never actually pay those expenses anyway, so that's not fair.

If a person is convicted they will pay a price.

I think I've thought along these lines before but now it's more in the forefront of my mind because I am personally aware of a situation in which money is a real limiting factor for a defendant. I think it is a situation in which, if money were no object, the odds of not only being acquitted but also of establishing a precedent such that police would have to discontinue poor practices are at least reasonable. But it would require a lot of research documentation, expert witnesses, etc. So money is a barrier.

I just don't think situations like that are good. If there is any hope of the American judicial system finding the truth in criminal trials at a reasonable rate we are going to have to ensure circumstances in which the prosecution doesn't have an advantage simply because it has more resources to devote. Having a situation in which the defendant is at a disadvantage related to finances simply isn't fair and I don't see how anybody could argue that it is.