Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I wonder how much of this has to do with funding differences. Public defenders are famously underfunded but prosecutors have essentially unlimited resources. As a result they are on a fast-track to political fortune, especially if they "do their job well" and "win" (get a lot of convictions).

How can the truth-finding benefits of the adversarial system be preserved while leveling the playing field by equalizing resources?

My naive thought is that both parties pay into a common fund that is split equally between the prosecution and defense. But that seems like it has it's own set of pitfalls. Are there other models we can look to for ideas?



So there's an underlying problem here, which is that at our current rate of indictments, our court systems cannot support everyone going to trial. One of the reasons people in charge of funding want to starve the public defenders is that if they're actually good, people will be less willing to just plea out to a lower charge. So the growth will be non-linear as their success rate increases due to the funding, which they now need more of to service the extra cases they get from being good.

One idea is that whoever introduces an expert witness must also pay for the other side's expert witness, up to the cost of your expert. The defense doesn't need to prove anything due to the presumption of innocence, so the defense gets free counter-experts and only have to pay for the counter-expert if they want to bring up an expert about something the prosecution doesn't want to talk about.


Huh, that’s an interesting idea but it seems to only address one form of inequality. Clearly the incentives are perverse. If there are more cases brought than the system can handle then this just sounds like a band aid at best.

The real issue is why are there so many cases?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: