We have a very high bar for guilt in criminal trials. This is because we would rather have many guilty people go free than send an innocent person to prison (there are still mistakes, of course). Given this situation, it wouldn’t make sense to assume anyone who is not convicted on even one count is actually innocent.
> We have a very high bar for guilt in criminal trials.
If we do, then my suggestion should be easy to implement and will only impact a tiny minority of cases.
Of course, in this case it's pretty clear that the prosecution made up a bunch of charges that they knew they'd lose on to try to drain the resources of the people they were charging, as well as punish them pre-emptively. The prosecution also clearly broke the rules in other ways, eg by getting a mistrial when they kept on bringing up sex trafficking, a crime the Backpage founders simply weren't charged with.
There are plenty of actual criminals in the world that need to be prosecuted. This case is clearly a politically motivated exception.
Sounds like a false dichotomy between "cases that will always result in guilty verdicts" and "cases that the prosecution knew they'd lose but brought anyway to drain resources". You don't seem to recognize that there are many, many cases that could go either way, based on how judges rule about evidentiary matters, what the composition of the jury is, etc.
As someone who was a lawyer for years, and who has served on a jury, I have seen the ways that things can evolve in unexpected ways. IMO the vast majority of cases could go either way, depending on how rulings and jury composition turn out. Any system that doles out taxpayer money whenever the prosecution doesn't run the table is utterly naive. It would result in less prosecution, more criminals going free, and more victimization by people we didn't lock up.
Yeah, cause then prosecutors would actually have to look for exculpatory evidence before charging instead of just sitting on their asses and relying on juries assuming guilt (because why else would someone be on trial?)
> This is because we would rather have many guilty people go free than send an innocent person to prison
No we wouldn't.
Or we wouldn't utilize the plea deal in 93% of criminal cases. And we use it with little-to-no oversight. Unless what a prosecutor offers is so -utterly egregiously inappropriate- that it causes a judge to double take, they can pretty much do as they like.
Which is why we use it more than 60x more per capita than any other country on earth, in those countries that even allow it (it's not even officially sanctioned in the UK, though it has happened - fun fact, nearly 40% of the cases appealed as a "miscarriage of justice" in the UK involved plea deals).
> A government spokesperson said: “Ensuring defendants plead guilty at the earliest possible opportunity means victims and witnesses do not have to relive their potentially traumatic experiences in court."
What? Not one word of innocence or presumption. Just "plead guilty early, we know you did it".
Even in countries that do use plea deals more often, there's strict oversight into what the deals entail and understanding of outcome.
Here, there's no incentive to rock the boat. Prosecutors push plea deals HEAVILY, innocence be damned, threatening the costs and risks of a trial (and the US over-charges people heavily) with a quick plea (that ever so conveniently allows our elected prosecutors to point to high conviction rates every re-election).
> it wouldn’t make sense to assume anyone who is not convicted on even one count is actually innocent
Oof. Not only is it "possible" you're not actually innocent, your attitude is "it doesn't even make sense to assume that". Screw it, why do we need a justice system? You were arrested, let's just take you straight to prison.
> Oof. Not only is it "possible" you're not actually innocent, your attitude is "it doesn't even make sense to assume that". Screw it, why do we need a justice system? You were arrested, let's just take you straight to prison.
Of course it's possible. But if someone is charged with 5 crimes and convicted of 4, why should we reimburse their legal fees? That is what GP proposed, and it would be nuts. If the prosecution struck out and went 0 for 5, that might make sense. But requiring them to run the table makes no sense.
I'll admit that your phrasing threw me. I thought you were saying that "let's be real, just because you were not convicted of a crime doesn't mean you didn't do it".
But yes, while not meeting the legal bar, you can as a private individual draw your own inferences - sometimes - about someone being convicted of 80% of charges... however, note still my comment on prosecution heavily over-charging people to improve conviction rates, either directly, or by contributing to fear/stress (cost of defense, consequences, risk) to bludgeon someone into a plea deal regardless of factual guilt.
These are criminal cases we are talking about. Cases that destroy lives when the prosecutors get it wrong. They damn well should be certain and they shouldn't be overcharging just to drain resources, as is clearly happening in this case.
If prosecutors aren't certain they can win on all 5 counts, bring 4. Or 3. Or even 1.
Most crimes should have pretty serious consequences. So convicting on one well-proven count should be enough.
