Should repeat offenders be entitled to free legal aid?

Yes - Innocent until proven guilty

If the accused cannot afford their own lawyer, then absolutely. Everyone should have the right to counsel, whether previously convicted of a crime or not.

yes, but not for sexual and violent crimes.

Fair legal aid for all

Yes, but deny after three crimes, and it depends on the severity of the crime as well (eg: sexual assault, murder, etc)

yes with limits on the amount of offences they have committed and the levels of crime, with more legal support for integrating back into society

In relation to drug offences, I do believe people should be offered help or guidance in the right direction to find help, but in general I think this question is too vague on the topic of repeat offenders.

Depends on the type of crime. If a very serious and severe or violent crime then no but young people or first time offenders should have assess

All depends on the crime and why it was committed. For example an addict who keeps reoffending is only reoffending to feed a habit. If they are minor offences they should be entitled to help. In an ideal world they would be offered rehabilitation over punishment.

I do believe that everyone deserves free legal aid, however, if the person in question is a repeat offender and shows no signs for change, then the thought of reconsideration would stand to a certain extent

should be dependent on the crime, as often offenders are lower class. If its for a petty theft crime yes but nothing severe

Crime dependent, if help can be provided to rehabilitate the criminal then i believe all aid should be provided

Yes, but I think there should be a different stance taken when there is a serious level to the crimes

It depends on the crime they committed.

Depends on severity of crime

If the criminal does such things as petty theft and get caught multiple times then yes but for more serious offences then no

It depends on the crime. Do help them as they our a person at the end of day and they could of changed

Depends on the nature of the crime. Example, homeless person trespassing to spend a night vs class A drug distribution or assault

I think it's important to see how willing they are to change, and of course it would depend on the severity of the crimes committed

Depending on the crime petty crime might be due to lack of education/ background issues only henious crimes shouldn’t be given help

Depending on the severity of the crime. Minor crimes, the offender should be allowed free legal aid. Offenders committing acts such as rape, murder, domestic abuse ect, should not be entitled to free legal aid.

If the accused cannot afford their own lawyer, then absolutely. Everyone should have the right to counsel, whether previously convicted of a crime or not.

depending on the severity of the crime, the reasoning behind the crime, where they were forced or not into the crime with evidence proving these situations

Yes, However if the offender has committed 3 crimes, committed a sex crime or brutal violence crime then no they should not be allowed to receive legal aid

Tough one but if we don't help they will get money through violence but it shouldn't be that easy to recieve

No, but rehabilitation programmes should be readily available for drug issues. Yes, in the case of self defence.

It really depends on the seriousness of the crime. If it’s repeated non-harmful crimes such as petty theft or carrying drugs for personal use shows that they’re struggling

Depends on the severity of the crime. If they are for example a repeat murderer, no, but if they are guilty of a "victimless crime" like the use of cannabis, yes.

Yes for minor punishements

This is unclear as to what the crimes have been

No but only for major offences

Repeat offenders of non violent crimes should be entitled to free legal aid, repeat violent offenders should be given a three strike approach

Everyone should be entitled to free legal aid regardless of offender status

If the charges are bad then no aid.

depends on the offence - if it’s shoplifting or vandalism then yes if it’s sexual or any kind of assault then no

Yes, but only if they were somewhat forced into the same situation again because there were no options available to behave differently.

Since, sometimes the law can discriminate unfairly against minorities, it is a technical issue waiting for law to catch up with fairness.

It is a case by case situation. If a repeat offender continues to reoffend and appear before the courts, they may be in need of another intervention

It depends on what the severity of the crimes and each of their circumstances. Probably should be decided by a judge.

Depends on the crime, if its a violent, sexual, financial or harassment then they should have to pay, if it is addiction related or not such as serious crime then it should be free.

Obviously. People are innocent until proven guilty. Just because a man has been convicted of three robberies doesn't make him an arsonist, and we should want him to be able to mount a defense. The innocent only have a chance to prove it because the guilty do as well.

Yes, but dent after three serious crimes. (e.g. violent crimes). Lesser offenses like possession or minor traffic infractions etc. should not count towards this.

No, but there should be rehabilitation programmes put in place and an understanding of the socio-economic back rounds to enable that rehabilitation.

Yes, but deny if the crime is serious (Rape, murder, Kidnapping, etc)

depends on severity of crime

depends on the crime that has been committed

Depends on what crime they have done and how bad it is

Yes but deny after 5 minor offences or after 2 major offenses

Yes if they only did crimes like burglary or car theft. Or manslaughter but that can depend. No if it is for serious crimes like hate crimes, rape, murder, attempted murder. Even if it was a single time, no.

depending on the crime, rapists and murders deserve no help but drug users and shop lifters etc deserve remorce

Sex offenders should not receive free legal aid. It depends on the situation involving other crimes

Depends on the crimes

Yes, but diminishing aid contributions for those with very high conviction counts (>20).

Depending on their previous offences

Yes, but only for bigger felonies.

it should depend on the age and circumstances of crime

Yes but after a certain amount of crimes they have to pay a certain percentage of the cost

Depending on the severity of the crimes

For non violent crimes then yes repeat offenders be entitled to free legal aid

Yes innocent till proven guilty

If they are an addict and it is for personal use

Assessment of their ability to reform and the addressing of reasons for their criminality should be assessed.

Repeat offenders should not exist. If they commit a crime while on bail or suspended sentence they should be locked up. Free legal aid should be withdrawn after second offence. This is a gravy train for legal representatives who are openly playing the system.

Depends how bad the crime is.

I think everyone should be entitled to free legal aid not just repeat offenders

Depends on seriousness of crime.

Depends on the seriousness of the crime.

It depends how bad the crimes are.

Yes, but depends on the severity of the most recent charge

Yes, unless its a felony, sexual, financial or violent crime.

It depends on how many reaped times because there should be a limit.

Yes but depends on the crime and how often repeated

Yes but not for violent or sexual crimes

Yes, depending on the person's circumstances (eg a homeless person stealing food)

Maybe a little

Yes but only if they enter into a rehabilitation program.

This depends on the crimes that the criminal have done.

depending on the volume and severity of crimes

prison reform is important

They should be provided with more long term solutions instead; along with legal aid.

Depends on the crime. If their offences are theft for example then yes but if they had intentionally killed someone then absolutely not.

As long as crimes are not murder or sexual

Depends on mental state

it depends on the severity of their crimes

Depending on mental health status. Fee aid for those with mental health difficulty

Yes, but depending on the severity of the crime

I support it if the have a mental illness but otherwise no.

It is up to the government

Discern according to the type of crime, if its violent or theft then limit the amount of times for example

No, but doe or ding on the crimes they are committing and for what reasons.

Depend on if it’s intentionally or unintentionally.

based on severity of crime, time between crimes, offenders financial situation, age and ALL repeat offenders should see a therapist, as the reason for crimes is often more than mischief and mayhem

It depends on the seriousness of the crime & it should depend on repeat offenders as well which is why this would to be under review

depending on the crime, if its minor theft yes or something like that but if its rape or planned murder absolutely not

This needs to be repealed free legal aid should be restrictive

State of that

Yes but deny after 2nd crime or 1st serious crime like murder

Only if they are not among the lines of a paedophile, rapist, murderer, etc

Depends on the crimes.