Indeed. "Egregious" in the court of public opinion isn't the same thing as a legal case put together rigorously by prosecutors arguing against the finest defense lawyers that scammers' money can buy.
Here's a rebel idea: In court cases, have the scoreboard weighted by the AGI of the lawyers.
define pro = accuser, con = accused
If the "pro" side has 10 points and the "con" side has 5 points, and the con side's lawyer makes 1/3 the salary of the pro side's lawyer, the con side wins the case.
Another rebel idea: If either side chooses to not use lawyers, the other side is also not allowed to use lawyers. If either side uses ChatGPT in the courtroom, the other side is also allowed to use ChatGPT.
Yet another rebel idea: The lawyer budgets of both sides must be equal. If you have more money to spend on lawyers you are required by law to give some money to the other side for their lawyers to make the budgets equal.
Let's say I have something like $1M to my name (total assets) and I'm accused of a serious crime. I'm ready to spend it all to not go to prison for decades, but the AGI of the prosecutor is like 1/3 of my respectable private attorney. State prosecutors make garbage so this isn't far fetched. I now have to fund the government and give a significant percent of my assets just to defend myself?
Making somebody fund their own prosecution during trial is probably the least rebel thing I've ever heard.
> So why not? Or get a cheaper lawyer yourself that's more fair to the other side.
Because that is money I could and should be able to use to defend myself. And should my defense be successful that's my retirement money and financial security. I don't care about fair for the government, they accused me of something I didn't do. There is a 0% chance that a states attorneys salary will get me a private attorney of the same caliber. That's just not how it works.
> There's a lot of rich people out there who get away with some really bad crimes just because they have really clever private attorneys.
So what? Why should my ability to defend myself be compromised because someone with more money could afford a better lawyer?
The presumption of innocence is one of the fundamental building blocks of our justice system. Prosecuting someone and making them fund their prosecution is a terrible idea, not a "rebel" one. The government already holds most of the cards here, this idea only cripples middle class and lower-end rich folks while not doing anything against the billionaires.
I think blank slate HN'ers who want to cleverly build from first principles are in a sense like the problem C++ of trying to import the banana class and accidentally bringing in the entire world.
But with the blank slaters it's more like, "let's solve brown bananas by making them out of titanium." And somehow you are left to import some unspecified number of classes for them until they finally posit that even bringing in the entire world won't fix the bug in their code.
> There is a 0% chance that a states attorneys salary will get me a private attorney of the same caliber.
But does the other side get the resources to have an attorney of the same caliber? If not, it's not a fair trial, and that's not how a justice system should work.
In your system, the rich will always have better lawyers, and will get away with crimes, and that's precisely what I'm trying to say we need to change. The rich should NOT have better lawyers just because they're rich. They can have better houses, better cars, better vacations, and better Michelin food, but no, they should not have better lawyers than everyone else.
We've seen in just recent years so very clearly that if the government wants to get you, they will spend nearly unlimited resources to do so. It doesn't matter how big or small the individual prosecutor's salaries might be - they can outlast you and outspend you every single time.
The deck is already stacked against most defendants.
It is more effective to fund death angels like Mexican cartels and Clintons. In many countries in Asia, a lot of rich people take these route. You can also routinely find prosecutors and some other businessmen killed in region coubtries in ASEAN. Most countries especially the richer one in ASEAN have government orders to media not to report these kind of news. Even if needs to, they will put in inner less critical media page and as non desceiptive as possible. The going rate is aroun 5000 usd...and that is market rate for amateur level death angels. It is incredibily effective sometime even CIA are scared to retaliate (remember many law enforcers have family members and near impossible to protect them). Philipines previous president actually use this method to tame the crooks there. In Asia, there is a saying where bigger dog eat smaller dog. And that is why China governance employ this. Look up their Jin dynasty and Ming dynasty assassinations histories. GoT is a pale fictional rewrite of those real history. Even Saudi's Khosoggi incident is too amaterish. The closest best implementation was probably Putin's. The west make such a big deal of it. If you got the time read up how entire family or just the childrens getting "sent off" by death angels years later. Heck even Goujin king in ancient China demonstrated how to do revenge in the most gentleman way. Moral of the story, if you are rich always groom your own death angels. Prosecutors may be fearless but they do care of their children and grandchildren untimely deaths decades later.
There could be ... in terms of form it's not that different from a glorified high school debate with some silly outfits and exccessive use of SAT vocabulary.