Once, in a town far away, some nutbar set fire to a block of flats. A lot of innocent people lost their homes and all their worldly possessions in the fire. The nutbar was already on bail after being accused of an insanely violent crime. I think this illustrates a problem with the legal system. The people who gave the nutbar bail didn’t have to live next to the guy. Maybe it’s time folks in court system did have a tangible stake in the bail system. I  sat through enough court cases when I was a reporter not to mistaking the law for justice. So, here’s my idea. If a lawyer applies for bail for his client, then the lawyer should be told that if his client appears in court for an offence allegedly committed while on the bail, then lawyer will be joining his client in the cells. Does the lawyer still think the client should be bailed? Why should the nutbar’s neighbours be the only people placed in jeopardy by the decision to grant bail? I can’t decide what should happen to the lawyer in the longer run. Should the lawyer be held until the client is brought to trial? Or perhaps three months in custody might be enough. Or maybe the lawyer could receive the same sentence as is ultimately imposed on the client. For too many lawyers the criminal “justice” system is a game. A game to be won by hook or by crook. It’s time their court room antics had some real-life consequences. I remember a rape case in which is what put to the victim during cross-examination that she’d had consensual sex with three men  at a bus stop the night before the attack. No evidence was produced to back up this claim. Personally, I would have made sure the lawyer involved never appeared in court again.