English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Career criminals are on first name terms with their solicitors yet pay nothing for their services and usually nothing to society in general. Surely there should be a limit to the number of times a person is entitled to free and independant legal advice. All you lawyers out there must drink copious amounts of horlicks at the taxpayers expense. Three times maximum should be a more than reasonable limit

2006-10-29 11:57:54 · 6 answers · asked by disco 2 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

6 answers

This is a good point. But thinking of some young offenders I have come across and the reasons behind their pattern of offending, I think that any legal aid representation under the age of 18 shouldn't count towards the threshold. Once they are adults, they should be able to take a long hard look at themselves and such a rule might reasonably be implemented.

A further absurdity is the amount of money paid by the taxpayer for cases involving dangerous dogs. It can be easier for a dog to obtain legal aid than a human being. When a dog of mixed breed bites someone the case tends to drag on and on in court, with very expensive experts arguing for each side about what breed it actually is, the real issue being whether it should be put down or not. If experts can't agree, then how can the court eventually determine what breed it is? And all this on legal aid.

2006-10-29 20:49:37 · answer #1 · answered by Doethineb 7 · 0 0

My own personal thoughts are that Legal Aid should be made available...BUT...if the defendant is found guilty...then they have to pay ALL legal costs regardless of ability to pay (ie unemployment)...as a tax payer working in the Legal system I find it frustrating as do millions of others that recidivists continually clog our legal system and walk guilty and laughing from our courts after receiving paltry fines and community sentences. If they are made to pay for their court appearance (and oh joy if they were also made to pay for the investigation etc processes - though it will never happen *sulk*)..then maybe they would be less inclined to commit further crime. - No doubt someone will point out that they will commit crime to pay the debts blah blah...but lets be real...they would commit further crime anyway...because that's what they do...and it costs them nothing!

2006-10-29 20:34:44 · answer #2 · answered by lippz 4 · 1 0

Totally agree, my taxes should be spent on propping up the NHS and put in a kitty to pay for pensions, not sqandered on habitual criminals, who aren't even good enough to not get caught. I work hard for a living, if i do something wrong, its my own fault and because i'm earning, i have to pay for legal help, why should some smack head scumbag get my money to defend himself for robbing me to pay for his habit???

2006-10-29 12:03:37 · answer #3 · answered by Phil K 1 · 1 0

I would say once if I was being kind.
I dont see why the taxpayer should pay anything towards criminals trying to defend themselves in court. Let them defend themselves if they cant pay for someone else to do it for them!

2006-10-29 20:06:30 · answer #4 · answered by Catwhiskers 5 · 0 0

while you're interior the united kingdom then you definately are entitled to felony help till you have an fairly super financial corporation account - examine the felony help board internet site yet from what I bear in mind whilst i became making use of for divorce in case you earned below £20k in keeping with year you acquire felony help?

2016-11-26 02:29:19 · answer #5 · answered by baksi 3 · 0 0

If recidivism is a problem, then the British public should use their vote to get Parliament to pass sentencing laws that are tougher. That way it won't become a legal aid problem.

2006-10-29 20:00:56 · answer #6 · answered by pengsanking 2 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers