I’ll bet you are really doubting the wisdom of starting this ill advised and poorly researched PIT thread, now, aren’t you? 
That’s exactly what SYG laws do. They just put the burden of showing the reasonableness on the prosecution, not the defendant.
as the Op’s own cite sez: " It has also served its intended purpose, exonerating dozens of people who were deemed to be legitimately acting in self-defense. Among them: a woman who was choked and beaten by an irate tenant and a man who was threatened in his driveway by a felon."
**Why do you want that woman to go to prison for life? **
Are you that depraved that you’d want a woman being choked out to go to prison, just because you don’t like SYG?
What would be the relevance of these data?
Another number pulled out of your ass?
And that’s exactly why the State should pay those costs. So that innocent people don’t plead guilty just to avoid the costs. Thank you for proving our point,* Counselor.*
Because bad prosecutors would bring less bogus charges.
Because bad prosecutors would bring less bogus charges.
In case anyone is genuinely confused about the SYG laws, Florida adopted two unrelated statutory provisions in the same bill, and the legislature stupidly called the whole thing “Stand Your Ground.”
One - the one that gets more attention - is the “Stand Your Ground” defense, which basically applied the preexisting Castle Doctrine to all places where the defendant “had a right to be.” What that means is that people no longer have a duty to retreat before using force outside their homes. At home, there was already no duty to retreat, which is why SYG made no difference to “homeowners”.
The other - the one being expanded here - gave defendants the right to seek immunity from prosecution and civil suit for any justifiable use of force (essentially, self-defense) by requesting a preliminary hearing. Because this is a pretrial grant of immunity, the defense bears the burden of proof (by a preponderance of the evidence).
What the bill I’m bitching about does is shift that burden of proof to the prosecution, and makes the state pay the defendant’s litigation costs.
Shifting the burden of proof to the prosecution is not exceptionable, in and of itself; Florida already shifted the burden of proof on affirmative defenses in a trial setting way back when we were granted statehood (at common law, the defendant had the burden of proof on affirmative defenses, and still does in civil cases).
The problem is that the prosecution would now be required to try a case twice to obtain a conviction, but only if the defendant claims self-defense. If the defendant’s defense is that somebody else killed the victim, or that it was an accident, or basically anything else, he gets squat.
Why do you so admire Hitler?
That has about as much relevance to what you said as the accusation that I want the woman to go to prison for life.
Can you point out where in the cites your statement is? The first article is three pages on my screen. Just let me know which one. The second article is only one page. That should be easy.
Taking your quote at face value (a big stretch), that was clearly a case of self defense. What is your point? Nobody is trying to get rid of the affirmative defense of self defense.
Do you honestly think that any violent crime suspect, no matter what the fact pattern, is not going to claim self-defense under this new law?
True, but if you’re facing a murder charge you’re going to go for broke.
Crap. I can still see quoted material. Oh well. It’s in this article, which I linked after the OP.
Queue stupid people building mounds in their yard so they can stand on more ground.
No need for that. You just stand with your feet farther apart.
Godwinize already?
First para, first page. The OP’s very own cite that sez that woman would have gone to prison* if not for SYG. * Now, since you dont need SYG if you have Self-defense, it appears she needed SYG. Or ir just made her defense easier and cheaper, perhaps.
Umm, nope, most will still plead out.
Boy, this* is *a brilliant legal maneuver. Let me know how it works IRL- counselor;
“Objection Your Honor, the opposing counsel is making too many good points, I have thus put him on my ignore list!”. :rolleyes:
This is the difference between you and Bricker. You pulled a bullshit number out of your ass, a number that anyone in the legal profession in Florida could have found in just a few minutes- hell- you found it in just a few minutes. But since you couldnt be arsed to research for a few minutes, you decided to pull a number out of you ass.
Bricker would never do that. His facts are always golden (of course, I think some of his opinions are crap, but some of mine are too).
So yeah, we are mocking you- since you deserve it.
And when asked a hard question, repeatedly- you weasel instead of answering.
“Well, it’s not home-owners” **WEASEL! **“Not about SYG” Objection, your very own OP made it clear you derided SYG.
And then you hide, like the moral coward you are.
Seriously?
Think about it for 5 seconds.
When talking about budgets and “bankrupting” the system, you kinda know what the base cost is first.
And how much do you think the State is paying to prosecute this trial?
I bet it’s a fuckload more than the average Joe can scrap up to pay a private lawyer to defend himself.
Yeah, DrDeth. I’m putting you on ignore, too. I decided before RNATB. You think you can educate a fucking lawyer on Stand Your Ground? That’s the last straw.
I came in here for either rants or some good analysis, and your constant inane posts are gunking up the works. Even I have the decency to post only a couple times and get out.
Make that three. Stupid is one thing, but life is too short to put up with aggressively stupid.
Well, yes and no. In Florida, public defenders are paid slightly more than prosecutors. The problem is that the prosecution has a much larger budget for other litigation costs - expert witnesses and the like. Of course, the state also has a much higher burden.
We’re getting off topic a bit, but I’ll try to explain. It’s true that access to defense counsel is a problem for everyone except the indigent, but having the state pay for their attorney’s fees if they win is not going to help (even assuming it’s fiscally doable, which I doubt for the reasons discussed above).
A criminal defense lawyer is not going to be able to take cases that he would not previously have taken. Why? Because we’d be getting into an effective contingency scheme in many cases.
Let’s say Steve the Criminal Defense Lawyer has a potential client, John, but knows that potential client can’t afford to pay for his services. He’s not indigent, but the minor assets he has are not liquid and he’s on disability. However, John has been charged with a crime which now requires to pay the fees of anyone exonerated under the Criminal Defense Bill introduced by Senator billfish. So Steve takes the case.
After a few depositions, it becomes clear that the evidence weighs against John even though he is factually innocent, and he is going to be convicted barring a miracle. The state is offering a plea deal which would result in probation instead of a certain custodial sentence. Any reasonable lawyer would tell John to accept it. But Steve doesn’t get a cent (or rather, will get only a few cents) if John pleads out.
As a lawyer, he is ethically bound to advise John to take the deal. As a businessperson with rent, overhead, staff salaries and so on, that means he won’t even make enough to pay for the paper John’s file is printed on.
So we don’t allow contingent fees in criminal law (or family law, because we want to encourage resolution of family law matters without litigation). So this won’t improve access to justice for anyone, because lawyers are not going to be able to take more cases than they previously would have. It will help make innocent people whole, to a degree, but only those who could afford to pay lawyers in the first place.
I don’t know about America but over here in the UK self-defence is an affirmative defence. That is, the defendant has to prove that it was indeed self-defence.
No, the starting point is “Do we assume that there is plenty of space in any budget the system has now?”
I’ll admit I know nothing about the court system in Florida, but I’ll bet you a nickel they have been slashing the budget, reducing hours, etc. Why do I assume that? Because I think it’s happening in the whole country.
So, if you want to add a cost to a system that is already struggling, the starting place is not “how big is the budget now”? The starting point is “how much will this add?”
We know it will only save money if prosecutors stop bringing charges in the first place. If that’s the goal, well, there are even easier, more honest, ways to get there.