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

[blu]

seems logical to me

 

[jillian]

seems logical to me

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.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It surely would cut down a lot of false prosecutions.

 

[shintao]

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.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

It surely would cut down a lot of false prosecutions.

That’s what lawsuits are for.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

It surely would cut down a lot of false prosecutions.

That’s what lawsuits are for.

The laws are for false prosecutions?

BTW, who would you sue?

 

[Immanuel]

seems logical to me

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.

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

 

[Google]

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.

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).

 

[Avatar4321]

To play devil's advocate, why should the tax payers pay if the police or prosecutors mess up? Why should they pay if they don't mess up and the jury just decides not guilty?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

It surely would cut down a lot of false prosecutions.

That’s what lawsuits are for.

You cannot sue prosecutors for taking you to trial just because they lose the case. You can't even sue them if you can prove that they brought the case maliciously.

 

[Immanuel]

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

It surely would cut down a lot of false prosecutions.

That’s what lawsuits are for.

You cannot sue prosecutors for taking you to trial just because they lose the case. You can't even sue them if you can prove that they brought the case maliciously.

It is too bad that they can't be prosecuted for that.

Immie

 

[Google]

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

It surely would cut down a lot of false prosecutions.

That’s what lawsuits are for.

You cannot sue prosecutors for taking you to trial just because they lose the case.

Yes, but a lot of people are forgetting in cases where someone is truly innocent, there is usually a third party that the defendant is going to simultaneously go after for whatever damages they deserve.

Also you can sue the government for damages, ie the police. What I find disturbing is that public servant can't sue if for negligence when they are injured on duty, like a firefighter. My father was a firefighter and his engine exploded responding to a gas leak caused by men digging in the dirt without taking the proper precautions. He was burned over 60% of his body, and was not able to sue anyone.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

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).

And a lot of those cases are phony as a three dollar bill.

 

[Google]

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

It surely would cut down a lot of false prosecutions.

That’s what lawsuits are for.

You cannot sue prosecutors for taking you to trial just because they lose the case. You can't even sue them if you can prove that they brought the case maliciously.

"Between 2000 and 2005, 99 percent of the 435,000 federal criminal defendants prosecuted nationwide were convicted" Source: Beating a federal rap not easy - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Pittsburgh News, Sports, and Events - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review...

A 95% conviction rate reeks of impropriety. That is actually very scary, especially in light of prosecutors being caught pursuing innocent people just because they believe they can get a conviction not because they are guilty. This is basically the power of the federal government convicting anyone they want. 99% is every time.

 

[Toronado3800]

The government does provide a public defender for your defense at no cost.

Trouble is money to buy a better lawyer makes you more likely to be innocent...

 

[jillian]

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.

unless there is prosecutorial misconduct, a case lacking probably cause will be dismissed at the beginning. sufficient evidence for a conviction is a subjective thing determined by a jury.

 

[jillian]

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.

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).

And a lot of those cases are phony as a three dollar bill.

and your proof of that other than your own fantasies?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

unless there is prosecutorial misconduct, a case lacking probably cause will be dismissed at the beginning. sufficient evidence for a conviction is a subjective thing determined by a jury.

What planet do you live on?