Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!OHIO-STATE.ARPA!testa-j%osu-20 From: testa-j%osu-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Re: Cost of Justice Message-ID: <12232188620.14.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Tue, 19-Aug-86 22:18:56 EDT Article-I.D.: RED.12232188620.14.MCGREW Posted: Tue Aug 19 22:18:56 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 21-Aug-86 01:03:38 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: testa-j%osu-20@ohio-state.arpa Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 101 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu >From: "Keith F. Lynch" > > From: ~joe testa~ > > 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. What? Are you saying that some criminals should be forced to subsidize the trials of other criminals? How is this different from non-criminals being forced to subsidize the local phone rates of other non-criminals, which you have already objected to? >Trials can also be paid for by voluntary >individual contributions, by the victims, I can't imagine many people being victimized by someone also volunteering to pick up their trial tab. > ... 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. Yes, i am aware that convicts have to work. BUT, are the lengths of their sentences dependent on their ability to pay for something? Should a rich rapist get a shorter sentence than a poor one simply because he has a smaller monetary debt to pay off? I think that the sentence should be determined strictly by the crime committed. (I realize that this is not strictly the case even now.) > 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. Agreed. >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. Here we go again. A person with lots of money can go ahead with the trial and take full advantage of the legal process; even if it is not likely that he or she will win, staying out of prison is worth the gamble. However, someone without as much money, who may NEED the "expensive" features of a trial for the chance to show that he or she is innocent, will not get that chance. This is equal justice? > 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. Unless you can't afford the expensive parts? > 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. OK, the first example (EXAMPLE) off the top of my head was a bit trivial. I can think of more -- the cost of constructing/renting and maintaining the court building; the cost of the record-keeping systems; and the aforementioned salaries of court employees. I'm sure that you can think of more, too. > 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. Well, there is evidence (not proof) for the former -- are you aware of any system which has ever existed and WORKED to provide equal access to a judicial system without taxation? I'm not saying that it CAN'T be done, just that it has never been proven that it can. I won't even bother with your comparison to slavery. -joe testa ------- -------