Should folk who are falsely incarcerated be compensated when they are found to be innocent?

[SEC=UGA]

I'm up for two of those.

 

Fine, we'll hire a limo.

[bpwallace49]

at a jury of their peers comment.

 

If evidence is tainted or tampered with, if a witness lies under oath, if a confession was obtained by torture (like our former police chief in Chicago back in the 80's did) then it has NOTHING to do with the jury. They have acted in good faith with the information provided to them. It is the people that produced that tampered information in the first place that should be taken to task.

 

When actors of the STATE, being police, prosecution, judges, etc make errors in judgement with improperly produced evidence, etc. Then the state should absolutely be held responsible for incarcerating someone that is innocent. Hell, start the compensation to the victims from the pensions/salaries of those that erred in the first place.

 

I am also for stronger penalties against those that lie under oath that result in an incorrect conviction.

[Furd]

Our justice system is inherently imperfect. Peers, members of his community were responsible for convicting said person of the crime for which said person was incarcerated. The people on the jury used the evidence before them and after deliberation decided on the guilt/innocence of the person, the state did not, thus the state should not have to compensate the person.

 

In the example above where the girl accused the guy of molesting her, well, that is not the state's fault that the girl perjured herself, it is not the fault of the state that the jury took the evidence presented to them and used this to convict the man. The person who should be held financially and criminally liable in this case is the girl who made the false statements and she and whoever knowingly supported this lie should be held culpable for any restitution.

 

 

This, pretty much.

 

I think that an exonerated convict is entitled to compensation if there is sufficient evidence of government misconduct and perhaps gross negligence.

[yo mama]

I'm not sure if the defendants should be compensated, or if so, how much. But I'd be 100% supportive of letting the (wrongfully) imprisoned person sue the DA's office for civil malpractice. If a couple law suits like that actually won, and I'd bet DAs offices all across the country would take a little more time to make sure the person they're trying to convict is actually guilty before spending taxpayer money trying to send an innocent person to prison.

[gbpfan1231]

at a jury of their peers comment.

 

If evidence is tainted or tampered with, if a witness lies under oath, if a confession was obtained by torture (like our former police chief in Chicago back in the 80's did) then it has NOTHING to do with the jury. They have acted in good faith with the information provided to them. It is the people that produced that tampered information in the first place that should be taken to task.

 

When actors of the STATE, being police, prosecution, judges, etc make errors in judgement with improperly produced evidence, etc. Then the state should absolutely be held responsible for incarcerating someone that is innocent. Hell, start the compensation to the victims from the pensions/salaries of those that erred in the first place.

 

I am also for stronger penalties against those that lie under oath that result in an incorrect conviction.

Well said

[matt770]

I think murder victims' families should be able to sue state's attorneys for malpractice if they put someone on trial and fail to convict, and the perp then goes on to kill again.

[Yukon Cornelius]

I'm not sure if the defendants should be compensated, or if so, how much. But I'd be 100% supportive of letting the (wrongfully) imprisoned person sue the DA's office for civil malpractice. If a couple law suits like that actually won, and I'd bet DAs offices all across the country would take a little more time to make sure the person they're trying to convict is actually guilty before spending taxpayer money trying to send an innocent person to prison.

when you are running a campaign you cant spend time worry about innocence.

[SEC=UGA]

at a jury of their peers comment.

 

If evidence is tainted or tampered with, if a witness lies under oath, if a confession was obtained by torture (like our former police chief in Chicago back in the 80's did) then it has NOTHING to do with the jury. They have acted in good faith with the information provided to them. It is the people that produced that tampered information in the first place that should be taken to task.

 

When actors of the STATE, being police, prosecution, judges, etc make errors in judgement with improperly produced evidence, etc. Then the state should absolutely be held responsible for incarcerating someone that is innocent. Hell, start the compensation to the victims from the pensions/salaries of those that erred in the first place.

 

I am also for stronger penalties against those that lie under oath that result in an incorrect conviction.

 

In cases where the state (sheriff, DA, police officer, etc...) fabricate evidence, withhold evidence, or commit perjury then their should be ramifications to the state if more than one actor was involved in the deceit (for instance you have a mayor who knows that the Sheriff and DA are fabricating evidence to prosecute a political opponent.) But, if some dude is picked up for murder based on a description by a victim, goes to trial, is convicted and then 10 years later DNA shows that he did not perpetrate the crime (If DNA tests were not available at the time) then there should be no obligation on behalf of the state to compensate the person that was incarcerated.

 

Look, sh!t happens and I feel horrible for the person who's life was interrupted and torn apart in such a manner. But the only manner to keep our legal system working is on the same basis that it is right now. Trial, evidence, jury, judge... There is no way to get it perfect 100% of the time.

Edited April 20, 2011 by SEC=UGA

[bpwallace49]

In cases where the state (sheriff, DA, police officer, etc...) fabricate evidence, withhold evidence, or commit perjury then their should be ramifications to the state if more than one actor was involved in the deceit (for instance you have a mayor who knows that the Sheriff and DA are fabricating evidence to prosecute a political opponent.) But, if some dude is picked up for murder based on a description by a victim, goes to trial, is convicted and then 10 years later DNA shows that he did not perpetrate the crime (If DNA tests were not available at the time) then there should be no obligation on behalf of the state to compensate the person that was incarcerated.

 

Look, sh!t happens and I feel horrible for the person who's life was interrupted and torn apart in such a manner. But the only manner to keep our legal system working is on the same basis that it is right now. Trial, evidence, jury, judge... There is no way to get it perfect 100% of the time.

 

There is no way to get it perfect . . . but there SHOULD be some level of redress for those that were victims of the system.

[Caveman_Nick]

Thank you for that. So, we do away with all law enforcement by the state so that they won't be held liable for restitution should a person be wrongly convicted by a jury of their peers. Sounds good, anyone want to join me for some blow, drunk driving, and underage hookers?

 

 

How about: Police and District Attorneys be sure they have the right person before they send someone to trial and ruin their life.

[Caveman_Nick]

I'm not sure if the defendants should be compensated, or if so, how much. But I'd be 100% supportive of letting the (wrongfully) imprisoned person sue the DA's office for civil malpractice. If a couple law suits like that actually won, and I'd bet DAs offices all across the country would take a little more time to make sure the person they're trying to convict is actually guilty before spending taxpayer money trying to send an innocent person to prison.

 

[bpwallace49]

 

How about: Police and District Attorneys be sure they have the right person before they send someone to trial and ruin their life.

 

Absolutely. Then this whole argumnet is null and void . .

[Duchess Jack]

Maybe if we threw the book at people that wrongly accuse someone of a crime that would put a dent in this issue. It is all too easy for someone(especially a female) to accuse someone of a serious crime and ruin their life.

 

I don't know. I imagine here and there rapists get off (no pun intended). So, we're going to have some chick get raped. Deal with a trial and be forced to recount everything. Than - if a case cannot be put together and the guy cannot be put away, we are going to throw the book at the chick after she watches the guy who raped her walk? Is that what you are suggesting?

[SEC=UGA]

 

How about: Police and District Attorneys be sure they have the right person before they send someone to trial and ruin their life.

 

In many of these cases they were "sure" they had the right person. They had enough evidence to convince a jury of 12 people that the person being prosecuted was the proper person.

 

In my experience law enforcement and prosecutors are very diligent (much more so today than say 40 years ago) in trying to find the guilty party. Do they have rogue actors, certainly, do they make mistakes, absolutely. But, for the most part they are trying to find the guilty person.

[TimC]

I served on my first jury ever out here in Hickville, Virginny. I've never been in trouble with the law because I'm not some pot smoking hippie

and I'm white

, but this jury wanted blood. The guy was a felon that discharged a gun at a family reunion. You can't even touch a gun here if you're a felon. He was breaking up a fight between his girlfriend and his cousin. His girlfriend went to the car and got the gun. He grabbed it out of her hands and shot a few rounds in the air to calm everyone down. Probably saved a few lives and should be declared a hero in that situation. He clearly did it, but shooting the gun off like he did dispersed the crowd that was egging them on. They gave him almost the maximum.

 

If I'm ever on a jury trial, I'm arranging a plea bargain whether I did it or not to avoid the disaster that is a jury.

[bpwallace49]

I don't know. I imagine here and there rapists get off (no pun intended). So, we're going to have some chick get raped. Deal with a trial and be forced to recount everything. Than - if a case cannot be put together and the guy cannot be put away, we are going to throw the book at the chick after she watches the guy who raped her walk? Is that what you are suggesting?

 

there is a difference between not obtaining a conviction and flat out lying to get someone in trouble.

 

If they dont convict for whatever reason, that doesnt mean that the charge was fraudulent. Now, if the charge was bullsh!t to start with, and it can be proven that someone lied to get a case built, THEN they should have the book thrown at them.

 

At least, that is how I read what Zeke was saying . . . and I agree with him.

[Caveman_Nick]

I don't know. I imagine here and there rapists get off (no pun intended). So, we're going to have some chick get raped. Deal with a trial and be forced to recount everything. Than - if a case cannot be put together and the guy cannot be put away, we are going to throw the book at the chick after she watches the guy who raped her walk? Is that what you are suggesting?

 

I think he was referring not to people that are found "not guilty", but rather to people that are proven indisputably innocent (say by DNA Evidence) and who were convicted because of a wrongful accusation made against them.

 

There should be a downside to it. I understand the whole logic of protecting victims and not wanting to discourage people from coming forward, but then what of the people who are wrongly accused? Aren't they also victims? Don't they deserve justice?

[Caveman_Nick]

In many of these cases they were "sure" they had the right person. They had enough evidence to convince a jury of 12 people that the person being prosecuted was the proper person.

 

In my experience law enforcement and prosecutors are very diligent (much more so today than say 40 years ago) in trying to find the guilty party. Do they have rogue actors, certainly, do they make mistakes, absolutely. But, for the most part they are trying to find the guilty person.

 

 

Yeah, see, I don't want them to be "sure". I want them to be sure.

[SEC=UGA]

I think he was referring not to people that are found "not guilty", but rather to people that are proven indisputably innocent (say by DNA Evidence) and who were convicted because of a wrongful accusation made against them.

 

There should be a downside to it. I understand the whole logic of protecting victims and not wanting to discourage people from coming forward, but then what of the people who are wrongly accused? Aren't they also victims? Don't they deserve justice?

 

They do deserve justice. That justice should be meted out on those who knowingly made false allegations, not the state as a whole.

[SEC=UGA]

Yeah, see, I don't want them to be "sure". I want them to be sure.

 

Can certainty happen without a trial.

 

And if the law enforcement authorities know 100% for sure that this dude did it, then why even have a trial?

 

Say you have video of a guy shooting three people, the cops know 100% that this dude did it... Just send the guy before a judge and punish him to the letter of the law, no jury, no trial?

Edited April 20, 2011 by SEC=UGA

[Duchess Jack]

I understand the whole logic of protecting victims and not wanting to discourage people from coming forward, but then what of the people who are wrongly accused? Aren't they also victims? Don't they deserve justice?

absolutely, but I believe that there'd have to be a high degree of proof that the person willingly and clearly lied - rather than an issue of falce identification or somesuch.

[Caveman_Nick]

Can certainty happen without a trial.

 

And if the law enforcement authorities know 100% for sure that this dude did it, then why even have a trial?

 

Say you have video of a guy shooting three people, the cops know 100% that this dude did it... Just send the guy before a judge and punish him to the letter of the law, no jury, no trial?

 

The trial by jury exists expressly as a check against the government. Their being 100% sure isn't enough. They have to be able to convince a jury as well.

 

If you have a video of it, it's typically an open and shut case where the defendant pleads guilty. Silly example.

 

Convincing a Jury is an imperfect system. It's the best system we are going to get, but it's still imperfect. A DA can obviously construct a case to get a conviction when the accused is not guilty. We know this because it has happened enough that we are talking about it.

 

And that brings us back to the point. A DA has constructed a case against an innocent person and convinced a jury to convict them. That person loses years off of their life. If they are proved innocent, the state should bear responsibility for that.

[Caveman_Nick]

absolutely, but I believe that there'd have to be a high degree of proof that the person willingly and clearly lied - rather than an issue of falce identification or somesuch.

 

You mean like the instance Avernus described?

 

 

yes, and by a whole frickin lot.....I know someone who was locked up for molesting his girlfriends daughter, but the girl came clean on it after she realized how serious things were.......but it was around election time and they wanted to make an example so he did some serious time....

 

the girl made it all up......and nothing could be done....

 

I believe he should be off on a beach right now with 3 personal assistants paid for by the government for life for spending what I think was 15 years or so in jail over a misunderstanding by a little girl who didn't want her mommy to marry this guy in particular....

 

EDIT: And by the way, the DA that prosecuted that case should be in jail for 15 years himself.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Caveman_Nick

[Duchess Jack]

You mean like the instance Avernus described?

perfect example.

[Savage Beatings]

Follow up question for those who think that some kind of compensation would be in order for someone who has been wrongfully imprisoned for many years... what if that person also had young children that then had to grow up without that parent in their life... would that child be entitled to any kind of compensation?