D.o.S. wrote:With our current court system, You'd be laying the groundwork for reimbursing the wealthier party almost every time.
Part of the point is a deterrence to frivolous lawsuits. You wouldn't want to sue someone unless it was very important and you felt you had a solid case. The case could be made however for a more structured system of fines should someone file a lawsuit and then lose. Perhaps an amount equal to their own legal fees not to exceed an amount set by the court, or a minimum set by the court should their fees be below a certain amount? It would need to be looked into with a lot more scrutiny to hammer it out.
bigchiefbc wrote:what if your attorney's fees get covered by the state if you're acquitted? That might make DAs a little lighter on the hair trigger to indict.
I like this idea, although again you'd need to create a structured set of regulations, so that you don't have attorneys setting their fees insanely high if they are sure they're going to have their client acquitted.
All of these are things that could be worked out. I do think that something like these ideas should be put in place nationally.
I've also been thinking about some sort of gradual decriminalization of drugs with relatively lower negative health effects. Marijuana being an obvious example. The jury is still out as far as I know on long term neurological effects, however even granting that possibility and some other concerns, it still means that it is at worst still not as bad as cigarettes for your health. This change should be reviewed periodically over the course of at least one generation to assess its effects and implications. I don't do drugs of any kind, or particularly like their effect on people, but I think that this is a fairly common sense and practical idea. There have been a lot of studies suggesting that decriminalization will cut law enforcement costs, and also decrease drug related violence, extortion, etc. as well as providing a possibly viable source of tax revenue and private income.
jfrey 2012