[lsniddy]

Most people don't take plea deals because they are too broke to defend themselves, by going to court you risk a much higher penalty if you lose. Would you take a guaranteed 12 months in prison or gamble on a 50% chance of 10 years?

[joeax]

If you are guilty a plea deal is a good deal. If you are completely innocent, and have some money to defend yourself, you have a moral obligation to fight the charges. (Note: I'm no expert on moral authority, it's just how I feel. Sorry)

[mamon]

The problem is, US lawyers are ridiculously expensive. I'm not aware of any other country where one court case against you can ruin you financially. So it doesn't matter if you are innocent or guilty, if you are charged, you've already lost.

EDIT: Why not make it a law that when you are found innocent then prosecutor's office should refund whatever it cost you to hire your lawyer?

[joeax]

Good question. It's rare to be reimbursed. You can sue for malicious prosecution after you have been aquitted, but many times these cases don't prevail.

[lj3]

Do other countries have this? It would discourage nuisance suits if this also applied to civil cases.

[luca_ing]

It is my understanding that in German civil suits it's customary for the loser to pay the cost of the law suit, including lawyer's fees (which are usually coupled to the monetary value of the lawsuit, so frivolously racking up the fees is difficult).

[ubernostrum]

In the US, the winning party in a civil suit can sometimes get their legal costs paid by the losing party. It depends on the type of case, and sometimes on whether the losing party is determined to have brought the case frivolously or for the purpose of being a nuisance.

The question, though, was whether a person in a criminal case would be reimbursed the cost of their defense by the government after being found not guilty.

[jandrese]

Completely innocent people can still be convicted. Some even get put to death. One of the distressing things about the courts is that everybody can just "know" the guy is guilty, but in truth they know the evidence is crap. But luckily his defense is crap (good defense costs money) so they can get away with it. This happens time and time again and eventually the odds catch up to them and they've convicted a lot of innocent people.

Even worse is when the evidence is poor but they want to convict the guy anyway because he looks like a bad guy. "Even if he didn't do this, I know in my heart that he's guilty of other crimes."

[emodendroket]

Why should that burden fall on a group of people who, are in general, least able to take it up?

[Sangermaine]

Unfortunately that "moral obligation" doesn't pay for itself, and if you can't afford to fight you're SOL.