h a l f b a k e r yWhy not imagine it in a way that works?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
When a miscreant is apprehended there is usually an
opportunity for him/her to post bail and go free, at least
until the trial is brought on. In the event the "alleged
offender" is completely cleared then that bail is released,
to the guarantor or surety note holder. All good.
However, there
are some cases where the "alleged
offender" is in a position to hire a very sharp legal team
and beat the rap, despite it appearing certain they will
be
incarcerated for their crimes. In these cases the
defence
lawyers are almost certainly "in the know", aware their
client is a baddie.
In those cases where this occurs, it would make more
sense to have the defence lawyers also post a bond,
against their client re-offending for a set period, to be
forfeit in the event of recidivism, if they manage to get
him off the charges.
Sure, it will be subject to abuse and the potential for a
very wealthy criminal to front the money to the
defending
lawyers. A simple check of assets, including real
property,
would soon clarify the source of proffered funds, to
prevent most of those cases.
It won't stop the least scrupulous lawyers and criminals
from colluding but it may well make lawyers think twice
about the nature of the clients they represent.
[link]
|
| |
Quite a lot of scope for criminals to use this system to extort money out of their defence lawyers in return for not committing crimes. |
|
| |
The purpose of defence lawyers isn't to represent people who they think are innocent, it is to ensure that everyone gets proper legal representation so that a trial can be seen to be fair(-ish). Fishbone from me. |
|
| |
That doesn't mean they should defend people they
know are guilty and set the fuckers free again. |
|
| |
Heres how I imagine this would play out: |
|
| |
1) Lawyers recognise their potential additional liability, before the law becomes active. |
|
| |
2) Lawyers require clients to pay for insurance covering that liability as a matter of course. |
|
| |
3) Price of hiring lawyers is therefore higher.
Pro-bono work decreases greatly. |
|
| |
4a) Poor people are less able to afford legal representation.
4b) Rich people are not affected by increased cost. |
|
| |
5a) More innocent but poor people are found guilty.
5b) The guilty rich are unaffected. |
|
| |
Is that the intended effect? |
|
| |
Just a minor aside, US at least, and I think everywhere. Bail is simply a guarantee of appearance in court, it is repaid upon appearance regardless of the guilt or innocence of the individual. |
|
| |
Besides, how do you tell the difference between the lawyers and the criminals ? (this question is not rhetorical). |
|
| |
When lawyers go to the dark side (probably just after
graduation), they become one with it, Masterb[8]. |
|
| |
Perhaps Australia should pioneer the concept of
abolishing defence lawyers? This would
immediately speed up the whole legal system. It
would also mean that prosecution lawyers would
not need to be so well-trained, and could
therefore be recruited from the current
unemployed masses at a far lower cost. |
|
| |
Finally, with none of this tedious back-and-forth
arguing in court, the currently overplayed role of
evidence could be reviewed. Law enforcement
officers are notoriously fair, unbiased and wise - it
would make good sense to rely on their instincts
in order to save time and improve the rate and
accuracy of convictions. |
|
| |
Australia - leading the world down under. |
|
| |
// Law enforcement officers are notoriously fair, unbiased and wise - it would make good sense to rely on their instincts in order to save time and improve the rate and accuracy of convictions. // |
|
| |
We have nothing to fear but fear itself, [MB],
regardless of how well-justified that fear may be. |
|
| |