Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!mordor!sri-spam!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!MC.LCS.MIT.EDU!KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU From: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Re: Cost of Justice Message-ID: <12232430955.54.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Wed, 20-Aug-86 20:30:07 EDT Article-I.D.: RED.12232430955.54.MCGREW Posted: Wed Aug 20 20:30:07 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 21-Aug-86 19:01:47 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 137 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu From: ~joe testa~ What? Are you saying that some criminals should be forced to subsidize the trials of other criminals? Yes. 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? Because the latter aren't criminals, of course! Do you really see no difference? It is ok to violate the rights of a convicted criminal, to the extent necessary to prevent crime from violating other people's rights to a greater extent. The simplest example of this is that it is ok to shoot someone if he is shooting at you. And it is ok to coerce money from a person if he coerced the same amount of money from you. My messages have been about the rights of noncriminals and of the accused. Read the 13th Amendment. We all know it abolishes slavery. To me it seems that it also abolishes the draft and taxation, since those are forms of involuntary servitude. There is, however, an exemption in the amendment. Read it. >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. They pay the cost of CIVIL trials, nobody finds anything strange about that. So why not the cost of CRIMINAL trials as well? In fact, an argument can be made that there should be no distintion between civil and criminal trials. Yes, i am aware that convicts have to work. BUT, are the lengths of their sentences dependent on their ability to pay for something? Perhaps they should be to some extent. The idea convict should make things right again if possible. Someone who steals a thousand dollars should get a more severe sentence than someone who steals a hundred dollars. "Thirty days or thirty dollars" is a common misdemeanor sentence. Do you think it is unreasonable to imprison only those who don't have thirty dollars? Should a rich rapist get a shorter sentence than a poor one simply because he has a smaller monetary debt to pay off? No. You can't put a monetary value on rape (unless the victim was a prostitute). I am speaking of paying off the court costs, not of victim restitution which is a different concept. Many things, such as murder, can't be put right or compensated for with any amount of money. Such crimes should have severe sentences which include both imprisonment and court costs and imprisonment costs and victim restitution to the extent possible, for instance replacing the murder victim's earnings. If the convict can't afford this, well, he can't. Maybe later he can. Meanwhile, fine other convicts proportionately more. Note that it is NOT government's responsibility to compensate victims of crime. It is the convict's responsibility to do so. Government's responsibilities include holding fair trials, punishing convicted criminals, and collecting court costs from the convict. The victim may bring civil suit for restitution, or restitution may have been mandated during the original trial as part of the punishment. I think that the sentence should be determined strictly by the crime committed. I agree that the punishment should not depend at all on the wealth of the convict, if that is what you mean. I am not convinced that the punishment should depend only on the crime. For instance I think it should be more severe if the convict has a long criminal record. >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? Perhaps not, but it is what we have now. Not all defense attorneys are created equal, and you are not going to get F. Lee Bailey if you declare indigency. Neither will you get a whole parade of expert witnesses. How would you recommend changing it? Allow multimillion dollar defenses at taxpayer expense for anyone who asks for one? Forbid such a defense from one who can pay for it, on the grounds of fairness? Strange kind of fairness that would be, making the chances that a that a jury will falsely convict a rich man as high as the chances that they will falsely convict a poor man! Please explain. > 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? You have a right to a jury trial. You don't have a right to dozens of expert witnesses and psychiatrists and high priced attorneys unless you can pay for them yourself or talk someone else into voluntarily paying for them. 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. These are the court costs convicted criminals would pay for. I never said I thought it would be free. > 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? As I pointed out in a recent message, not so many decades ago a person could find no examples of a major civilization without slavery. This did not justify slavery or prove that its lack would cause the collapse of civilization. Since no judicial system prior to ours has been even close to fair, I don't really have a whole lot of instances to search through. Saying that it probably can't be done any other way because this one happens to to be done this way reminds me of an old joke. "All Indians walk single file - at least the one I saw did." ...Keith -------