Should the government contribute in the cost of a trial for a person that says they are innocent and want help proving it?
2006-11-04 22:01:00 · 4 answers · asked by Tara 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Justice is a public good in the interests of the whole of society, the costs should be borne by society as a whole until wrong-doing is proved, at which point the costs should be put to the account of the wrong-doer. The onus must always be on the prosecution to prove wrong-doing, not on the accused to prove innocence.
2006-11-04 22:17:04 · answer #1 · answered by Sangmo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they already do that, it is called a public defender, no cost to the accused. the bad thing is though....public defenders have little access to special witnesses etc, their hands are tied by the judge on what they can spend etc. I believe in every city/town there should be the same kind of access to facilities and specialistsfor the defense as for the prosecution. the prosecution has everything under the sun working for them, the police, state investigators......in some cases even the FBI. yet defense attorneys have their hands tied by the judge......extremely unfair, and we do not realize that is actually the system we live under today, hat is until it is YOU, and until YOU are actuallly accused.......and do not have the money to pay for experts and defense tests out of oour own pockets. then......too late, you are rail roaded.
2006-11-05 06:16:26 · answer #2 · answered by trish the dish 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it would be very costly because Red is the only guilty man in Shawshank.
2006-11-05 06:32:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i belive so.
2006-11-05 06:11:08 · answer #4 · answered by J M 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋