When a miscreant is apprehended there is usually an opportunity for him/her to post bail and go free, at least until the trial is brought on. In the event the "alleged offender" is completely cleared then that bail is released, to the guarantor or surety note holder. All good.
However, there are some cases where the "alleged offender" is in a position to hire a very sharp legal team and beat the rap, despite it appearing certain they will be incarcerated for their crimes. In these cases the defence lawyers are almost certainly "in the know", aware their client is a baddie.
In those cases where this occurs, it would make more sense to have the defence lawyers also post a bond, against their client re-offending for a set period, to be forfeit in the event of recidivism, if they manage to get him off the charges.
Sure, it will be subject to abuse and the potential for a very wealthy criminal to front the money to the defending lawyers. A simple check of assets, including real property, would soon clarify the source of proffered funds, to prevent most of those cases.
It won't stop the least scrupulous lawyers and criminals from colluding but it may well make lawyers think twice about the nature of the clients they represent.-- UnaBubba, May 03 2012 Quite a lot of scope for criminals to use this system to extort money out of their defence lawyers in return for not committing crimes.-- hippo, May 03 2012 They deserve each other.-- UnaBubba, May 03 2012 The purpose of defence lawyers isn't to represent people who they think are innocent, it is to ensure that everyone gets proper legal representation so that a trial can be seen to be fair(-ish). Fishbone from me.-- DrBob, May 03 2012 That doesn't mean they should defend people they know are guilty and set the fuckers free again.-- UnaBubba, May 03 2012 Heres how I imagine this would play out:
1) Lawyers recognise their potential additional liability, before the law becomes active.
2) Lawyers require clients to pay for insurance covering that liability as a matter of course.
3) Price of hiring lawyers is therefore higher. Pro-bono work decreases greatly.
4a) Poor people are less able to afford legal representation. 4b) Rich people are not affected by increased cost.
5a) More innocent but poor people are found guilty. 5b) The guilty rich are unaffected.
Is that the intended effect?-- Loris, May 03 2012 Just a minor aside, US at least, and I think everywhere. Bail is simply a guarantee of appearance in court, it is repaid upon appearance regardless of the guilt or innocence of the individual.-- MechE, May 03 2012 What [MechE] said.
Besides, how do you tell the difference between the lawyers and the criminals ? (this question is not rhetorical).-- 8th of 7, May 03 2012 When lawyers go to the dark side (probably just after graduation), they become one with it, Masterb[8].-- UnaBubba, May 03 2012 Perhaps Australia should pioneer the concept of abolishing defence lawyers? This would immediately speed up the whole legal system. It would also mean that prosecution lawyers would not need to be so well-trained, and could therefore be recruited from the current unemployed masses at a far lower cost.
Finally, with none of this tedious back-and-forth arguing in court, the currently overplayed role of evidence could be reviewed. Law enforcement officers are notoriously fair, unbiased and wise - it would make good sense to rely on their instincts in order to save time and improve the rate and accuracy of convictions.
Australia - leading the world down under.-- MaxwellBuchanan, May 03 2012 // Law enforcement officers are notoriously fair, unbiased and wise - it would make good sense to rely on their instincts in order to save time and improve the rate and accuracy of convictions. //
<Judge Dredd>
"GUILTY !"
<BANG>
</Judge Dredd>-- 8th of 7, May 03 2012 We have nothing to fear but fear itself, [MB], regardless of how well-justified that fear may be.-- UnaBubba, May 03 2012 random, halfbakery