Why Shouldn't They Pay?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2288844/Criminals-cars-sold-help-pay-legal-aid-says-Justice-Secretary-announces-plans-speed-savings.html

/// New powers to seize and sell off the cars of convicted criminals to help cover their legal aid bills will be introduced as part of plans to cut the cost of the scheme. ///

But it should not just stop at their cars, what about their houses? After all law abiding pensioners, who have worked hard all their lives so as to own a house, have their houses sold off to pay for their care home bills.

[factor-fiction]

The problem may be when the house will be in the partner's name half the house belongs to a partner

[douglas9401]

Most folks buy their car on credit or have it on a lease so it actually belongs to someone else.
Headline seeking policy on the hoof again.

[Noth43]

//The Bar Council said competition by price was a 'blunt instrument' which could damage standards//
I thought that was already the case. The rich can afford better lawyers and get more lenient sentences or walk free as a result.
With legal aid it's a fairly even playing field but I do think criminals should contribute if they can.
However, if they have an expensive car/house does that mean through price competition they'll get a better lawyer?

[Old_Geezer]

I guess the issue is that one ought not be disadvantaged simply because one is accused of something, justice should be free for all. Although of course it isn't because little is as it should be. There again if you have spent your life contributing to the country's coffers then you ought not be expected to pay for yourself when you need help in your old age either. For some of us it seems to be a case of you can pay for what others in society need because that's the decent thing to do, but you can't claim when you need it because you should have provided for yourself and can't expect others to help you out.

[anotheoldgit]

factor-fiction

/// The problem may be when the house will be in the partner's name half the house belongs to a partner ///

That is no problem, half the house can still belong to the partner with the other half belonging to the state.

[bazwillrun]

Increase the penalties and then offer a sentence discount based on sales of assets.

i thought the courts already the powers to seize criminals assets

[tonyav]

They have bazwillrun.

[SeaJayPea]

Take that to its logical conclusion, aog. Scumbag does crime, goes to jail, state confiscates half his house. He comes out of jail and moves back in with wife. What's he lost? And on top of that, why would he bother to maintain the state's assets?

Let's suppose, however, the state says it's his, bought with the proceeds of crime and boots the entire family out. Then we have to finance housing them.

The courts already have the power to make somebody criminally bankrupt. I suspect that, as Douglas has suggested, this is a bit of political spin.

[anotheoldgit]

SeaJayPea

/// Take that to its logical conclusion, aog. Scumbag does crime, goes to jail, state confiscates half his house. He comes out of jail and moves back in with wife. What's he lost? And on top of that, why would he bother to maintain the state's assets? ///

What's he lost?

Both he and his wife have lost half the value of their house, regarding maintaining the state's assets, they still have to live in the house even though it may be falling down around them.

[New Judge]

There is only the power to seize a convicted criminal's assets if they have been gained through crime (The Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002).

A vast amount of Legal Aid is spent by defendants fighting charges where no seizeable proceeds exist. Most crimes involving violence, for example, would fall into this category and much of the acquisitive crime dealt with in the courts involves property of very low value.

[New Judge]

And I forgot to add that the proposals to restrict Legal Aid also involve restricting its use in civil matters such as divorce hearings and immigration appeals. These involve no criminal matters and the Proceeds of Crime Act would not be applicable.

[youngmafbog]

I thought they could put a charge on your property if you have legal aid. They certainly did when I got divorced - some 25 years ago admittedly.

[pdq1]

Asil Nadir and the Maxwells must be on their last knees becuase they both got legal aid. Its about time they targeted some of these poor millionairres.