Nathan wrote:Substantiate that good cases would be dismissed
I didn't say good cases would be dismissed under your system. I'm saying prosecutors would decline to prosecute some good cases because of the costs associated with losing, even if they have good evidence and the probability of conviction is fairly high.
Nathan wrote:There is no justice in losing your freedom, financial stability, home and family over a charge that never should have happened.
Agreed, but your system wouldn't just effect unfouded cases. Unfounded cases are not the only ones that result in acquittals.
This never would have happened if the State were held accountable.
Aitken was convicted in court. The state would not have had to pay even if your system was in place
Nathan wrote:...I just don't know of any other way to remove some of these stupid, unconstitutional prosecutions such as what was happening to this man in NJ. There are scores of similar cases that I am familiar with such as the guy who was moving and had guns packed away in his trunk as he travelled through NJ and was sentenced to seven years in jail (later released).
That prosecution should have never happened, but the thing to remember is that Aitkin was convicted. So how would your system have made any difference? It wouldn't punish the state for cases that they win.
Nathan wrote:Or this guy who was charged after the airline changes his schedule putting his handgun back in his possession in NJ (he was originally flying from UT to PA where the gun would be legal)
In that case, the prosecutor decided to drop the charge. The guy wasn't acquitted in court, so under your system the outcome would have been the same in this case too.
Nathan wrote:This is still saying the same thing as the end result is the same.
It's not the same. Disciplining prosecutors for a pattern of constant losses is not the same as having the state pay for every individual loss. I'm not saying you can't argue for both things, but don't claim I should have assumed you were talking about both when you only mentioned one.
Nathan wrote:It's not "different"; it is only explained more thoroughly with more details after having more time to discuss it.
Okay, but it's still not what you said before. It's a pretty big addition, so you can't retroactively claim it was part of your original argument.