Chalk up another one for the tyrannical government

[INGunGuy]

Because there is no longer the "land of the free" The only thing we have is the most tyrannical government on the planet....

INGunGuy

 

[ATOMonkey]

I wouldn't say the most, but it appears as though we're trying to win that trophy.

 

[RockofStrength]

Because there is no longer the "land of the free" The only thing we have is the most tyrannical government on the planet....

INGunGuy

We are not the most tyrannical, merely the one that best combines hidden with tyrannical. Venezuela, India, Iran, North Korea etc are far worse than here, but they're also very obvious about it. I suppose one could say we are the worst tyrannical government, if only because it is unlikely that our citizenry realizes that they need to overthrow it, while Iran and such are having resistance problems of late.

 

[chefnick7]

Just curious here if she was found not guilty of all counts would the state then pay for her defense expenses. Sounds like someone in the attorney generals office is trying to save face.

 

[88GT]

I'd be okay with her having to pay for the search since she knew where her daughter was the whole time. But having her pay for the costs of the trial is not unlike self-incrimination on some level.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

midemeanors. she was convicted of four misdemeanors. hence the four consecutive one year terms. by it's definition a felony is a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than one year. Why does everyone keep saying she was found guilty of four felonies? is it just bitter wishful thinking because they wanted to see her fry but she was exonerated of the most heinous charges against her?

And the idea that a person must pay for their own prosecution? That sounds so ridiculously fascist on it's face I'm amazed anyone could even say it out loud and keep a straight face in the "land of the free".

Who cares if they are misdemenors or felonies? And who said anything about felonies. I said convicted of four charges. She was convicted of four charges.

There are all kinds of user fees and assements based upon one's use of government services. We pay park fees to enter a park so that park maintenance does not come out of the general budget that has to be taxed. I could go on an on with all the user fees. I would be happy if all government services were provided by fee rather than taxed to the whole. If you get a traffic ticket, you pay $3 for the fine, and $114 court costs. Everyone found guilty pays court costs. Why should she be any different?

It is totally reasonable for her to have to pay the cost of her prosecution. She was found guilty. The tax paying citizens of Florida are entitled to be reimbursed the costs. It is the right and just thing to do. I don't understand the sentiment to the contrary.

 

[silverspoon]

Except that she wasn't found not guilty. She was found not guilty of murder, but guilty of four counts of obstruction of justice. She was sentenced to four consecutive one year terms in prison, and was released after time served plus roughly two weeks.



How exactly is it extortion when a person found guilty of four felony counts is expected to repay the state for its prosecution?/

Losers in court cases are often assessed court costs, whether criminal or civil. The only complaint I have is that courts don't award attorney costs to parties found not guilty, not liable, or otherwise prevails. I think it's a crime for the state to bankrupt somone when the state loses.

Seems you did say felony counts ...

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Seems you did say felony counts ...

I stand corrected. I was wrong in stating it was a felony, and missed that I had called it such.

Despite my incorrect statement, the point remains. It is not unreasonable to be charged court costs when you are convicted of a crime, regardless of the catagory of crime.

 

[hornadylnl]

If we make those accused responsible for all their court costs, there will never be any limits on what the state is willing to spend to put someone away. Also, you'll never see any cutbacks in courtroom employees. Job security, anyone?

 

[Stschil]

If we make those accused responsible for all their court costs, there will never be any limits on what the state is willing to spend to put someone away. Also, you'll never see any cutbacks in courtroom employees. Job security, anyone?

The coin could be flipped and prosecution made to pay for the defense expenses of those found not guilty. It'd be really interesting to see if public funds could not be used for reimbursements.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The coin could be flipped and [STRIKE]prosecution[/STRIKE] tax payers made to pay for the defense expenses of those found not guilty. It'd be really interesting to see if public funds could not be used for reimbursements.

FTFY

Does that change your mind any? Prosecutors play with other people's money. I would prefer they not play with too much of mine.

 

[Stschil]

FTFY

Does that change your mind any? Prosecutors play with other people's money. I would prefer they not play with too much of mine.

Maybe I wasn't being clear, but in the second part I said they couldn't use public funds, meaning it would have to come from their own pockets.