If you think it is okay for a person found to be innocent to be financially wiped out afterwards, then even if you understand how the legal system works, you are wrong.
Furthermore, just because the DA brings charges against you, and you are lated aquitted...
It is the same as being found innocent in the eyes of the law, isn't it?
Malicious prosecution is hard to charge and very very costly.
I'm not talking about malicious prosecution. That should have nothing to do with it. If you are found innocent and have incurred big legal bills to defend yourself, the state should pay you the cost of your attorney fees. The same as it is in civil matters under the English rule. Why should you be so damaged by the state's mistake?
You are not found "innocent" in our legal system, you're found "not guilty." There's a difference.
If you are found innocent and have incurred big legal bills to defend yourself, the state should pay you the cost of your attorney fees
The state will provide you a defense attorney for free, if you do not want to pay for one. However, if you go out and spend $1 million on your defense (like OJ), why should the rest of us pay for your defense?
Sorry to inform you, as an attorney myself, your thinking, although in line of what I personally believe, it not how the system works.
Of course innocent people should not be wiped out financially.
Would you agree however, that the taxpayers should have paid for OJ's lawyers? How about is Scott Peterson were aquitted?
The bottom line is that the state does not pay for your lawyer if you can afford one yourself. Additionally, there are many cases that are not clear cut instances of abuse on the part of the DA.