If I was on the jury for the George Zimmerman trial, I would have voted "not guilty". I think the jury did the right thing. At the beginning, the State did not pursue prosecution as they did not feel they had enough evidence to bring to trial. With the public protest as it was, they changed their minds. Now, George has to live with the incident, the trial, and make a way for himself in life. Unfortunately Martin lost his life.
My wife and I were talking about the interaction between the prosecution and the defense. It is sort of a game, where one could win, one could lose, or a mistrial, where the game could start all over again. We wondered how the game would be played if there was something at stake for the State if they lose a case. In reality, charges can be brought against an individual, and a determination to go to trial, and then that person has to defend him/her self.
The defendant will incur costs to defend him/her self even if actually innocent of the charge. Costs for the State are paid for by the State. If the State wins, they get what is set aside for punishment of the defendant. If they lose, they have spent some money.
If the defendant loses, he/she gets the punishment. If he/she wins, gets nothing (usually) but (usually) the the costs of the defense of the charges, and living through the anxiety and repercussions of a trial.
What if the game was changed that if a defendant was found not guilty, the state would have to pay a large sum to the defendant...like a losing fee? Would that be an impetus for the State to more careful in their prosecution?
This post is not intended to be a political one and I urge any responses not to be either.
.
My wife and I were talking about the interaction between the prosecution and the defense. It is sort of a game, where one could win, one could lose, or a mistrial, where the game could start all over again. We wondered how the game would be played if there was something at stake for the State if they lose a case. In reality, charges can be brought against an individual, and a determination to go to trial, and then that person has to defend him/her self.
The defendant will incur costs to defend him/her self even if actually innocent of the charge. Costs for the State are paid for by the State. If the State wins, they get what is set aside for punishment of the defendant. If they lose, they have spent some money.
If the defendant loses, he/she gets the punishment. If he/she wins, gets nothing (usually) but (usually) the the costs of the defense of the charges, and living through the anxiety and repercussions of a trial.
What if the game was changed that if a defendant was found not guilty, the state would have to pay a large sum to the defendant...like a losing fee? Would that be an impetus for the State to more careful in their prosecution?
This post is not intended to be a political one and I urge any responses not to be either.
.
Comment