Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!MC.LCS.MIT.EDU!kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu
From: kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: mod.politics
Subject: Cost of Justice
Message-ID: <12229620492.51.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Sun, 10-Aug-86 03:11:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: RED.12229620492.51.MCGREW
Posted: Sun Aug 10 03:11:47 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Aug-86 06:07:54 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 63
Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu


    From: ~joe testa~ <TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>

    Say the cost of conducting a murder case (salaries of attorneys
    and judges, cost for maintaining a courtroom, etc.) is $XXXXX.
    Now say a defendant is found guilty and so is liable for these
    expenses.  What if he/she has nowhere near this amount of money?

  There is no requirement that the fine be restricted to the cost of
the trial.  The fine can be made sufficient to subsidize unsuccessful
and indigent trials.  Trials can also be paid for by voluntary
individual contributions, by the victims, and by voluntary
organizations of potential victims.

    ... does it mean that the convicted person will somehow have to
    "work-off" the debt?  I thought we got rid of debtor's prisons a
    long time ago.

  We are speaking of people who have been convicted of a crime, not of
people who have simply gone into debt.  So why not?  You think that
prisons DON'T make convicts work?  If so, you are wrong.
  For first time and nonviolent crimes, electronically supervised
probation is a promising and inexpensive alternative to imprisonment.
The probationer can work normally while under such supervision.

    Anyway, i'm not familiar with the actual costs of a trial, but i
    can imagine that the cost for a complicated case could easily
    exceed the amount of money that convict could "earn" for the rest
    of his/her life.

  Like anything else government pays for, the cost of trials has gone
up enormously.  I think it can be reduced a lot without interfering
with anyone's rights.  And it is in the interests of the defendant, if
he thinks he is likely to be found guilty, to waive expensive features
of the trial.
  You DO realize, the vast majority of criminal cases do NOT go to a
jury trial, or even a judge trial, but are plea bargained.  This is in
the interests of the defendant if he thinks he will be found guilty,
and is quite inexpensive.

    No matter who you are, or how much money you have, you have a
    right to a trial by your peers.

  Right.  This is important and should not be changed.

    Besides, there are all of those other expenses -- electricity for
    the court room, for example -- who volunteers to pay for them??

  Be real.  If the courtroom is lit by ten flourescent 40 watt bulbs,
and the trial lasts 10 hours, at $0.07 per kilowatt hour that would
cost less than thirty cents.  If this is the best that opponents of
libertarian philosophy can come up with, we must be doing pretty well.

    If the only reasonable way to guarantee equal access to the
    justice system is by taxation, then that is the way we are forced
    to do it.

  And if the only way to guarantee equal access to the justice system
was by slavery, would you support that?  There is no evidence for
either assertion.
                                                              ...Keith

-------