Compensation.

[RetiredGySgt]

If a State is going to compensate a person for "wrongful imprisonment" then it should not matter that they have ever been rightly convicted before. The only consideration should be if it was a legal technicality that got them off, not proof of innocence.

I do agree that to sue one must prove they were purposefully wrongly tried and convicted. Any other standard endangers the legal system we have, which I believe is very good. Notice that even with DNA tests now in the history listed less than 1600 people have been released for being "innocent".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/ap_on_re_us/exonerated_inmates

 

[jillian]

If a State is going to compensate a person for "wrongful imprisonment" then it should not matter that they have ever been rightly convicted before. The only consideration should be if it was a legal technicality that got them off, not proof of innocence.

It shouldn't matter what happened in any case prior. The requirment of a clean hands provision is absurd.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It shouldn't matter what happened in any case prior. The requirment of a clean hands provision is absurd.

I can agree with that. In fact I pretty much did. Damn it is getting cold around here.

 

[jillian]

I can agree with that. In fact I pretty much did. Damn it is getting cold around here.

RAFLMAO!! Has to happen occasionally.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

When it comes to rights and laws, I believe that NO one has any rights if EVERYONE doesn't have the SAME rights all the time. Our judicial system MUST be blind when it comes to determining who gets justice.

If the system does not protect everyone equally does not provide the same rights then everyone is in danger of being on the outs depending on who holds power.

It is why when ever Joyce starts in with his seperate the races crap I respond. He can not grasp the simple fact if it is ok to deny rights to ANYONE, then he has none either.

It is also why I get so irritated when powerful politicians get special privalege or the rich or famous. No one should be treated differently by our legal system.

 

[Diuretic]

If a State is going to compensate a person for "wrongful imprisonment" then it should not matter that they have ever been rightly convicted before. The only consideration should be if it was a legal technicality that got them off, not proof of innocence.

I do agree that to sue one must prove they were purposefully wrongly tried and convicted. Any other standard endangers the legal system we have, which I believe is very good. Notice that even with DNA tests now in the history listed less than 1600 people have been released for being "innocent".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/ap_on_re_us/exonerated_inmates

I've never seen a case lost on a "technicality". I have seen cases lost because of a lack of admissible evidence, impropriety by the police or prosecution, a defendant's counsel tear the prosecution case to shreds in front of a jury...but never just a "technicality".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I've never seen a case lost on a "technicality". I have seen cases lost because of a lack of admissible evidence, impropriety by the police or prosecution, a defendant's counsel tear the prosecution case to shreds in front of a jury...but never just a "technicality".

Then that stipulation should in fact be no problem at all, eh what?

 

[Diuretic]

Then that stipulation should in fact be no problem at all, eh what?

What stipulation RGS?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What stipulation RGS?

That if a conviction is overturned by a technicality not by proof of innocence the State not have to automaticly pay. You know what we were talking about.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You would think, from all the rhetoric about innocent men released from prison and how our system is so prone to making mistakes, that more than 1600 people would have been released over the years. Even with DNA only a few hundred have been found innocent. Statistically that is miniscule.

Ohh wait now we get the "even one innocent man" speech.

 

[Diuretic]

That if a conviction is overturned by a technicality not by proof of innocence the State not have to automaticly pay. You know what we were talking about.

No, I didn't connect that. I wasn't being deliberately disingenous.

But on that point, the law doesn't recognise "technicalities". If there's insufficient admissible evidence then the prosecution fails. The defendant doesn't have to prove innocence (Woolmington v DPP in the UK at least), the prosecution has to prove guilt. If the prosecution fails to prove its case then the assumption of innocence carries through and the defendant continues to be regarded as being innocent.

 

[Diuretic]

You would think, from all the rhetoric about innocent men released from prison and how our system is so prone to making mistakes, that more than 1600 people would have been released over the years. Even with DNA only a few hundred have been found innocent. Statistically that is miniscule.

Ohh wait now we get the "even one innocent man" speech.

No just a reference to the innocent one that has been executed.

As for miniscule - is it okay for only one innocent person to be imprisoned? Maybe one in...what are the acceptable numbers....one in a thousand, one in five thousand, one in ten thousand? I tell you if you're the poor bastard who's innocent but convicted ratios mean bugger-all. You don't get those years back. And if you've been executed but innocent, well, it speaks for itself.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, I didn't connect that. I wasn't being deliberately disingenous.

But on that point, the law doesn't recognise "technicalities". If there's insufficient admissible evidence then the prosecution fails. The defendant doesn't have to prove innocence (Woolmington v DPP in the UK at least), the prosecution has to prove guilt. If the prosecution fails to prove its case then the assumption of innocence carries through and the defendant continues to be regarded as being innocent.

Your missing the conversation. This is about AFTER someone has been FOUND guilty and imprisoned, later to be prove their innocence and be compensated for being imprisoned for something they did not do.

Innocent until proven guilty is the law here as well. BUT once found guilty and all automatic appeals are over, the convicted has to PROVE innocence to overturn the conviction.

While rare technicalities HAVE ended cases and could overturn a conviction. I am arguing that if the conviction is overturned solely on a technicality and not on proof of innocence that the State not have to automaticly pay the person for time served, that in that case it be on a case by case basis.

 

[Diuretic]

Your missing the conversation. This is about AFTER someone has been FOUND guilty and imprisoned, later to be prove their innocence and be compensated for being imprisoned for something they did not do.

Innocent until proven guilty is the law here as well. BUT once found guilty and all automatic appeals are over, the convicted has to PROVE innocence to overturn the conviction.

While rare technicalities HAVE ended cases and could overturn a conviction. I am arguing that if the conviction is overturned solely on a technicality and not on proof of innocence that the State not have to automaticly pay the person for time served, that in that case it be on a case by case basis.

Okay thanks, that does bring me up to speed.

I wish I had the same faith in the criminal justice system others do. I don't. Now from that cynical position I suppose all my other statements are judged. Then so be it. Okay, when the system has incarcerated an innocent person they have no choice but to prove their innocence. Point taken. Bloody difficult to do. The ones who manage to do it must surely have been fitted up by a corrupt system. They're not going to get out of the slammer on proving a "technicality", they're going to have to prove they were really dudded. If that's the case then coppers, prosecutors and maybe judges should be investigated for corruption.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Okay thanks, that does bring me up to speed.

I wish I had the same faith in the criminal justice system others do. I don't. Now from that cynical position I suppose all my other statements are judged. Then so be it. Okay, when the system has incarcerated an innocent person they have no choice but to prove their innocence. Point taken. Bloody difficult to do. The ones who manage to do it must surely have been fitted up by a corrupt system. They're not going to get out of the slammer on proving a "technicality", they're going to have to prove they were really dudded. If that's the case then coppers, prosecutors and maybe judges should be investigated for corruption.

When a conviction is overturned and any hint of corruption was involved IT DOES get investigated. MOST cases are simple mistakes. Although you will find that prosecutors do not care about guilt or innocence, just in the win column.

A lot of convictions on shaky grounds are not corruption but arrogance of the Prosecutor. Cops and Prosecutors want to catch crooks, cops will decide who did something and then while not corrupt, put the pieces together to fit what they believe. Prosecutors will see a win and not give a damn about innocence or guilt.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Here is an example of a technicality...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070914/ap_on_re_us/pendragon_plot

The man is still guilty and deserved to be locked up. Might he have been sent to a nut ward instead? Maybe, but insanity is a tough sell for any jury.

State doesn't owe him a dime if they decide not to retry him.

 

[Diuretic]

He might have been found insane if jurors had been given proper instructions and if the prosecutor had not withheld key information from a psychiatric witness, U.S. Magistrate James Larson said in a Sept. 7 ruling.

No technicality, that's the sort of thing that sees a case thrown out on appeal. Aside from the allegation of prosecutorial impropriety there's the misdirection issue. Those aren't technicalities, they go straight to the heart of the system.

 

[jillian]

Here is an example of a technicality...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070914/ap_on_re_us/pendragon_plot

The man is still guilty and deserved to be locked up. Might he have been sent to a nut ward instead? Maybe, but insanity is a tough sell for any jury.

State doesn't owe him a dime if they decide not to retry him.

That's not a technicality. Whether he was able to formulate the necessary mens rea to be held responsible for a criminal act is the basic question asked when a heinous crime is committed.

The danger of an insanity plea is that you have to start by admitting the underlying act, so if the jury doesn't accept the insanity defense, you know that you're automatically going to be convicted.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I disagree and my point stands, this person deserves no compensation from the State in my opinion. He committed the act. He was not found innocent and in fact no one is arguing he did not do what put him in jail, including him.

The DA may decide not to try again. Figuring time served and old evidence. No compensation is owed this person.

 

[Psychoblues]

rgs likes to claim that he is a 100% disabled veteran and enjoys the appropriate pension associated with that rating decision by the Veterans Administration. 100% disability means incapable of any meaningful work in my book and in the overview of the Social Security Administration. He clearly demonstrates he is capable of substantial work.

He is either a hypocrit or a liar.

Is fair and comparative compensation just a joke?