Because he murdered his parents is why he has access to the estate.So you think the citizens should pay for his defense? Because that it the only other option here and if he's a part of the estate, then it is his money he would be using. I don't understand why people think the citizens should be paying for his defense when he has access to funds to pay for it.
Get a public defender.So you think the citizens should pay for his defense? Because that it the only other option here and if he's a part of the estate, then it is his money he would be using. I don't understand why people think the citizens should be paying for his defense when he has access to funds to pay for it.
I think she means in this case where the funds would come from the people being murdered. I don’t think she means from his own funds.So you think the citizens should pay for his defense? Because that it the only other option here and if he's a part of the estate, then it is his money he would be using. I don't understand why people think the citizens should be paying for his defense when he has access to funds to pay for it.
but that means that the citizens should pay for his defense when he does have access to it?Because he murdered his parents is why he has access to the estate.
That logic would still make the citizens responsible for his defense and that is a crime in itself if he is named in the estate.I think she means in this case where the funds would come from the people being murdered. I don’t think she means from his own funds.
So you want to pay for his defense? I sure don't, especially when he has access to funds. The public pays for a pubic defender.Get a public defender.
Right. A trust for after their deaths.but that means that the citizens should pay for his defense when he does have access to it?
Also, how do we know that he did not already have access to funds from the estate, like a trust that is doled out on a schedule? That money would be from the estate, too.
I know.So you want to pay for his defense? I sure don't, especially when he has access to funds. The public pays for a pubic defender.
He killed them. So he should get nothing.That logic would still make the citizens responsible for his defense and that is a crime in itself if he is named in the estate.
Not always. Many rich have trusts set up to dole out funds while they are alive. I know quite a few trust fund kids where the person that formed the trust is still alive and kicking. It's all in the way it's set up. It's called a living trust for a reason. There are tax advantages to doing so.Right. A trust for after their deaths.
Exactly, plus his siblings might have had a say in it too.Guessy, you’re making me think before I finish my 1st cup of coffee. But I’ll bet if his parents were able to have a say in it, they would want their money used for him to get the best defense, and if that means being in a mental hospital the rest of his life, so be it. Just seems like that would be what they would want, whether I agree with it or not.
a prime example I have close to me is a lady I worked for has a trust set up to pay the property taxes for several Habitat for Humanity house owners each year and she is very much still alive.Not always. Many rich have trusts set up to dole out funds while they are alive. I know quite a few trust fund kids where the person that formed the trust is still alive and kicking. It's all in the way it's set up. It's called a living trust for a reason. There are tax advantages to doing so.
A "will" is what you are thinking of. They take effect after death.
I linked it above, it's the full movie. It's a good watch imo.I haven't seen it.
yeah, blood money from the blood he spilled to pay for his defense for the blood he spilled. What is right about that??? NOTHING.I agree. A mental hospital. So he can be deemed fit to join society?. No. Estate paying for his trial. They shouldn't have that option.
Well I think there's more to it than that but generally that's what they hope yep.He's declared mentally incompetent. He will go to a mental hospital rather than prison.
The money comes from the estate of the people he allegedly killed. Had he not killed them, there's be NO money. There is NOTHING right about that.So you think the citizens should pay for his defense? Because that it the only other option here and if he's a part of the estate, then it is his money he would be using. I don't understand why people think the citizens should be paying for his defense when he has access to funds to pay for it.
Maybe from grandpa, that would be different, he didn't kill him. Doubtful the parents had trusts that were giving money while they were alive.but that means that the citizens should pay for his defense when he does have access to it?
Also, how do we know that he did not already have access to funds from the estate, like a trust that is doled out on a schedule? That money would be from the estate, too.
I was thinking of a trust.Not always. Many rich have trusts set up to dole out funds while they are alive. I know quite a few trust fund kids where the person that formed the trust is still alive and kicking. It's all in the way it's set up. It's called a living trust for a reason. There are tax advantages to doing so.
A "will" is what you are thinking of. They take effect after death.
We don't know that he doesn't have money of his own although I think it doubtful or he wouldn't have needed mummy and daddy to pay for everything and house him.That logic would still make the citizens responsible for his defense and that is a crime in itself if he is named in the estate.