Paying for crime

A recent case reported progress through the courts where the accused have been found guilty and are now appealing the process. The cost (without the cost of the prosecution) has almost reached $1 million. The accused pleaded not guilty. There appears that there is no cost (or penalty) to them in taking this position. Currently it takes a year or more for cases to be heard, even for violent crimes. During this time the accused are presumed to be innocent and are usually released into the community on bail. I suggest a solution to help speed up the process and free up the court backlogs. Simply remove the right of the accused to have mitigating factors considered by the judge if they have pleaded not guilty. Let the judge consider mitigation wholly at their discretion. My rationale is that the accused has already shown contempt (in the moral sense if not in the legal sense) by pleading not guilty. By prolonging the legal process with a not guilty plea the resources of the justice system and their victims have been consumed to their exclusive benefit without any cost to themselves. If the right to have mitigating factors and allowances granted is automatically removed when the defendant responds with a not guilty plea and the subsequent opportunity to appeal is also removed on this basis, perhaps a guilty plea may be considered early into the process. This should not defer legitimate not guilty pleas; I trust the acumen of the judiciary to see justice served.

Quentin Miller, Te Atatu¯ Sth.