SBF down, Do Kwon down, Su Zhu down, many many more to go... I've been amazed at how slow the law seems to be in apprehending the most egregious scammers from that era.
define pro = accuser, con = accused
If the "pro" side has 10 points and the "con" side has 5 points, and the con side's lawyer makes 1/3 the salary of the pro side's lawyer, the con side wins the case.
Another rebel idea: If either side chooses to not use lawyers, the other side is also not allowed to use lawyers. If either side uses ChatGPT in the courtroom, the other side is also allowed to use ChatGPT.
Yet another rebel idea: The lawyer budgets of both sides must be equal. If you have more money to spend on lawyers you are required by law to give some money to the other side for their lawyers to make the budgets equal.
Also, what are "points"? There's no scoreboard in a courtroom...
There could be ... in terms of form it's not that different from a glorified high school debate with some silly outfits and exccessive use of SAT vocabulary.
We had a bored teacher on their day off. (Or sometimes a parent, or an alumni.)
Making somebody fund their own prosecution during trial is probably the least rebel thing I've ever heard.
You said you were ready
> give a significant percent of my assets just to defend myself
So why not? Or get a cheaper lawyer yourself that's more fair to the other side.
There's a lot of rich people out there who get away with some really bad crimes just because they have really clever private attorneys.
Because that is money I could and should be able to use to defend myself. And should my defense be successful that's my retirement money and financial security. I don't care about fair for the government, they accused me of something I didn't do. There is a 0% chance that a states attorneys salary will get me a private attorney of the same caliber. That's just not how it works.
> There's a lot of rich people out there who get away with some really bad crimes just because they have really clever private attorneys.
So what? Why should my ability to defend myself be compromised because someone with more money could afford a better lawyer?
The presumption of innocence is one of the fundamental building blocks of our justice system. Prosecuting someone and making them fund their prosecution is a terrible idea, not a "rebel" one. The government already holds most of the cards here, this idea only cripples middle class and lower-end rich folks while not doing anything against the billionaires.
But with the blank slaters it's more like, "let's solve brown bananas by making them out of titanium." And somehow you are left to import some unspecified number of classes for them until they finally posit that even bringing in the entire world won't fix the bug in their code.
But does the other side get the resources to have an attorney of the same caliber? If not, it's not a fair trial, and that's not how a justice system should work.
In your system, the rich will always have better lawyers, and will get away with crimes, and that's precisely what I'm trying to say we need to change. The rich should NOT have better lawyers just because they're rich. They can have better houses, better cars, better vacations, and better Michelin food, but no, they should not have better lawyers than everyone else.
I don't consider the sides equal coming in. The state is the accuser, with an exclusive right to file charges and they can do full investigations. They have taxpayer funding so they are far richer than all but the very richest people they go after. They also make the extremely complex system of laws that only experienced professionals can navigate. The deck is already stacked extremely in their favor in almost every way. I don't get your obsession with making sure the accused person has their money taken to level anything that might be in their favor.
> In your system, the rich will always have better lawyers, and will get away with crimes, and that's precisely what I'm trying to say we need to change. The rich should NOT have better lawyers just because they're rich. They can have better houses, better cars, better vacations, and better Michelin food, but no, they should not have better lawyers than everyone else.
I'm not disputing that the poor do get shafted in the current system and the rich are at an advantage. The fact that you want a better justice system doesn't make the idea you proposed any less insane.
The deck is already stacked against most defendants.
While in theory they could be earning billions in interest just sitting on all that cash, there’s very little reason to believe the billions they claim to have exist. Do they seriously expect people to believe that they have more assets under management than at peak crypto in 2021, with billions more pouring in regularly?
Not just a year or two.
Justice, especially for complex things, which require investigation, is seldom fast. It probably wouldn't be fair otherwise.