[GandalfTheGrey]

Its something I often think about from time to time - should those who are acquitted at trial be compensated for legal costs, time spent in custody, loss of business etc. Then I heard this very interesting report on the radio, the transcript of which is available online.

The obvious problem with a blanket policy of compensation for everyone acquitted is that you would be paying those who were almost certainly guilty, but acquitted because of a legal technicality. In Australia, the law, as far as I can tell, is that there are certain circumstances in which the government can pay compensation, but those circumnstances are extremely rare. Most of the time its just tough luck for those who are wrongly accused.

Personally, I would be in favour of extending the compensation rule - even if it means that some guilty people will be paid.

[Truthseeker]

Bad idea for two reasons.

1. It gives governments an incentive to lighten the burden of proof

2. It would make it even less likely for the rich and famous to be tried for crimes than it already is because they have the most money or reputation to lose.

[Apollos]

1. It gives governments an incentive to lighten the burden of proof

2. It would make it even less likely for the rich and famous to be tried for crimes than it already is because they have the most money or reputation

Two very good points.

[I_Race_Ma]

In addition to the two points already mentioned, I would also add that an acquitted person could, in certain circumstances, sue for damages.

[GandalfTheGrey]

an acquitted person could, in certain circumstances, sue for damages.

which would incur more legal costs, and probably a high risk of failure.

[I_Race_Ma]

True, but they still can, especially if they were falsely accussed or something along those lines.