should the government pay the legal fees of people who are acquitted?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by blu, Jun 1, 2011.

  1. blu
    Offline

    blu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,836
    Thanks Received:
    774
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +774
    seems logical to me
     
  2. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    no. it's not. there are all kinds of reasons why people lose cases. being found not guilty does not mean that the person didn't commit the act. it doesn't even mean that the prosecution didn't have evidence. it only means that the jury found insufficient evidence for a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
     
  3. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    OJ was aquitted.

    The problem would be that it would wind up like lawyer welfare.
    If lawyers want a free ride from the govt they should get into politics.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2011
  4. P F Tinmore
    Online

    P F Tinmore Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    34,588
    Thanks Received:
    1,698
    Trophy Points:
    1,080
    Ratings:
    +2,920
    It surely would cut down a lot of false prosecutions.
     
  5. shintao
    Offline

    shintao Take Down ~ Tap Out

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    7,231
    Thanks Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +339
    I disagree Jill. When a person brings an action against a suspected person, especially a case lacking probable cause and sufficient evidence for a conviction, and has to acquit the suspect, they/government should have to pay their legal fees and other related expenses including loss wages.
     
  6. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    I think it should be a jury decision as well in the case. If aquittal then they decide if the govt pays the legal fees or how much of them.
     
  7. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    ThatÂ’s what lawsuits are for.
     
  8. P F Tinmore
    Online

    P F Tinmore Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    34,588
    Thanks Received:
    1,698
    Trophy Points:
    1,080
    Ratings:
    +2,920
    The laws are for false prosecutions?

    BTW, who would you sue?
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2011
  9. Immanuel
    Offline

    Immanuel Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    16,823
    Thanks Received:
    2,210
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +2,224
    Huh?

    So you are saying that we should not have public defenders? So, only the rich walk free when accused of a crime?

    Or are you reading this question in another light? My first thought was in regards to public defenders then I thought maybe he meant that the accused should get his legal fees paid if he is found to be innocent.

    I'm thinking maybe my second interpretation of the question is correct and in that case, I am not sure that the government should not have to pay those legal fees. If I am falsely accused of a crime, why should I lose my life savings to pay legal fees just to prove my innocence?

    Immie
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  10. Google
    Offline

    Google Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,779
    Thanks Received:
    458
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +808
    I think that would lead to what it already has in civil cases, awarding unheard of amounts of money.

    I also do not believe the government should have to pay if there is an acquittal. Prosecutors need to be held responsible, also something that is not done many times--due to the ineptitude in certain government institutions-- and they would be more cautious when bringing criminal charges. That, not monetary compensation, should to the determent.

    But hey, what is the federal conviction rate? 95% conviction rate? (Federal conviction rate is amazingly high).
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2011

Share This Page