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: <12233232408.16.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Sat, 23-Aug-86 21:52:38 EDT Article-I.D.: RED.12233232408.16.MCGREW Posted: Sat Aug 23 21:52:38 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 24-Aug-86 03:13:47 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: testa-j%osu-20@ohio-state.arpa Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 98 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu [ Due to an administrative error, the reply from Keith to this message has already appeared in the last digest. My apologies to Joe Testa. - CWM] From: "Keith F. Lynch" > 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. Well, i see *some* difference, but not to the level you do. Should a criminal convicted of some minor crime end up paying for some huge murder trial? It is interesting to see that you DO think that rights are not "inalienable" for everyone. > 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? I think you misunderstand what i mean by the "cost" of a trial. We were discussing the GOVERNMENT'S expenses in conducting a trial. The government spend money to set up the judicial system, pay judges, etc. The government does NOT pay for the attorney fees, costs of legal research, etc. for an individual case (unless, of course, the government is a party to the case). I do not suggest that people should have these costs paid by the government, and they do not now -- either civil or criminal. However, the government should pay the overhead costs of maintaining the judicial system so that ACCESS to the system is available to everyone, regardless of how much money they have. Once they can access the system, then it is up to them how they will utilize the system. There is also another difference between civil and criminal trials. In a criminal case, if you lose, you could end up in jail or lose money. In a civil case, you can lose only the money. So it is more vital that access to the court system in a criminal case be available. > 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 >should get a more severe sentence than someone who steals a hundred >dollars. This is not the same thing. I said that sentences should not depend on the ABILITY to pay. I also said elsewhere that the sentence should depend on the crime; stealing a thousand dollars is different than stealing a hundred dollars. > You can't put a monetary value on rape (unless the victim was a >prostitute). What??? It is more ok to rape prostitutes??? > 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. Agreed. I had overlooked that. > 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. Right. As i said before, ACCESS must be available; beyond that, you choose with your own resources how you will use the court system. One should not have to rely on voluntary contributions determining whether or not the court will be in session this year. -joe testa- ------- -------