What Price Justice?

[agchristie]

How can it be right that people are pleading 'Guilty' to offences that they are not responsible in fear of a hefty court charge if they pleaded their innocence and were then convicted?

There again, Chris Grayling and square peg springs to mind....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/crippling-court-costs-force-povertystricken-people-to-plead-guilty-to-crimes-they-didnt-commit-10466451.html

[Gromit]

There appwar to be 3 faults with the new sustem.
1. The difference between pleading 'guilty' and pleading 'innocent' is 10 times greater. While that ecourages guilty people, who can afford it, to plead guilty, and potentially save the state money, it also encorages innocent people, who cannot afford the £1000 fine if they lise, to plead guilty to a crime they have not committed. That is not justice.

2. The fixed nature of the fines can be disproportionate. Steal an 80p loaf of bread, and get a £1000 fine.

3. Taking away the discretionary powers of Magistrates to impose fines, means that many fines will be imposed that will not be able to be paid. Meaning more people will end up in prison when the fines are mot paid. Which goes against the aim of the new scheme, which was to save the tax payer money.

[Svejk]

I doubt any innocent people would plead guilty to save money in the unlikely event of being wrongly convicted.
Might stop scrotes from automatically pleading innocence, and engaging legal teams to every charge they, rightly, face.

[agchristie]

@ Svejk

The article states at least 30 Magistrates have stood down with more likely. I doubt it is purely because of the charge itself but that in many cases it is distorting justice.

// Poverty-stricken people are being encouraged to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit out of fear they will face crippling costs imposed by new financial penalties, leading lawyers, magistrates and campaigners have warned.//

[Svejk]

When have changes to anything been greeted with universal approval? I can't claim to know all the 'ins & outs' of the legal system but I'm sure, like most systems, it might need a 'shake-up' from time to time.
There'll be winners and losers and, as is the norm, the losers will shout the loudest.
It will be interesting to hear what our legal-eagles think.

[agchristie]

It will be interesting to read the views of NJ and PP for example.

On many issues universal approval isn't always possible and you can't please all the people all of the time.

However, this is too important an issue to see the legal profession itself being undermined with people in the legal business leaving on principal and innocent folk gaining a criminal record where, in many cases, they are innocent which in turn can affect career prospects etc.

Chris Grayling was seen to be one of the worst Justice Ministers by many. He didn't help himself with this example....