The post you are reporting:
Fools rush in where wise-men fear to tread...
Let us not confuse 'Justice' with 'Law', due process or no.
Being convicted by a Court does not confer 'guilt' any more than not being convicted by a Court confers 'innocence'.
It takes a queer idea of the relationship between a Citizen and the State, that would deny any standing at all to the Citizen.
Perhaps what some enjoy about these proposals is that they put the lid on the removal of, and the replacement of, The State (whether it be Crown or Parliament) with 'Money', Cash is King*.
It may be that such a notion fits well with an individual's sense of equality, it may seem the height of egalitarianism, because if the State is represented by The Crown, next to nobody, not born of that one family, will be at all able to progress up the ranks of the Social Strata, but anybody (and always the most deserving) can come by great wealth. Where any of this leaves any and all notions of Democracy, seems not to matter one little bit.
Shall the convicted, innocent or not, need to earn over £21k before their wages are subject to garnishment? If not, what then the chances of 'redemption'. Would it be that any conviction resulting from a contested Court action marks those convicted as outcasts from society, to become fit only for begging on the streets?
It 'used' to be thought only Just and Fair that any individual facing the full might of the State should be provided with the means of defending themselves.
Yet, if this so called justice is to be free at the point of need, what of the Appeals process? At what point does this begin to look like a money saver? Then we can begin to wonder at the likelihood of the non-appropriately insured accused would be ever able to begin to repay what is said to be their strictly monetary liabilities?
This is just plain dumb!
*[URL][/URL]