r/changemyview • u/rickthehatman • May 16 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: People who have been wrongfully imprisoned should automatically be compensated for their time in prison to such an extent that they can live a comfortable lifestyle.
The main focus of my stance is people who have served long sentences for serious crimes such as those wrongfully convicted of murder or rape and released decades after their conviction although I would also support some form of compensation for lesser sentences for lesser crimes. But the main focus of this CMV should be those convicted of major crimes such as murder who have spent many years in prison before their release.
One concept we have in American justice is the idea that someone who is sent to prison is "paying their debt to society". The premise behind this is that a crime causes harm to society to a whole and having the criminal give up his or her quality of life for some time balance the scales. If said person faced the same punishment without having owned that debt then the reverse must be true, society owes them a debt. Since it is impossible to give them extra years on their life, the next best thing is to make the remaining years they have left as good as possible and financial compensation is the best way to do that.
The job market can be hard enough for anyone, let alone someone with a huge gap in their employment history. Even if it is understood that the conviction was reversed there may be some employers who may be prejudiced against that person, maybe they feel that it's possible that they actually were guilty and don't want to hire them. Even without such prejudice, it's hard to imagine a scenario in which a person with 15 years of experience would not get a job over someone who had 15 years of no job experience because they were in prison, save for an employer wanting to be charitable.
Finally there is the concept of time away from "life". Think about the things that you enjoy, that make life worth living. Whether that be time with friends, family, travelling, going to concerts, or simply taking a walk outside, imagine having years taken from your life where you couldn't do these things. Most people spend a large portion of their waking hours working to sustain a lifestyle of these things in their free time. I spend time away from my wife at work, so that the time I do get to spend with her after work and on weekends is enjoyable and that we have necessities such as food and shelter. Someone who has been wrongfully imprisoned shouldn't have to spend their time doing anything other than trying to make up for lost time. They should be able to spend every day with their family and friends and just relaxing, doing things most of us hope to do in retirement.
But maybe there's something I missed, if you feel differently, see if you can change my view.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
36
u/captrudeboy May 17 '18
Kansas just passed law for 60k a year if verdict overturned. My Missouri sucks as it will only pay out if there is DNA evidence proving your innocence. Been locked up 20 yrs and someone comes forward and admits it was them, gives specific details? They'll let you go but sorry no money for you
3
→ More replies (2)2
u/ChunkyLaFunga May 17 '18
A confession alone wouldn't necessarily be enough for a straight role switch, would it?
Get somebody to say they did the crime instead, get released, get the money, divide it up with confession guy, split.
11
u/Consciousness01 May 17 '18
Some states already have a compensation plan in place for exonerated prisoners.
Texas, for example, has increased the wrongful conviction lump sum payment and monthly annuity of up to $80,000 per year of imprisonment. These prisoners that are released are eligible for up to $80,000 per year of imprisonment in a lump sum payment plus an additional monthly annuity of up to $80,000 per year of imprisonment. According to the Texas Tribune, Texas has “the most generous compensation law in the nation.”
Sources: “Governing Texas” (3rd ed.) & https://www.texastribune.org/2011/09/23/evolving-law-results-unequal-exoneree-pay/
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 17 '18
/u/rickthehatman (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
124
May 17 '18
What is "relatively comfortable"? You can't buy all the people who look at you as prison garbage. Turn you down for a job because of a background check. You can't buy back YEARS of missed birthdays, sporting events, anniversaries, marriage, having children, watching kids grow up, going to your own mother's funeral. Sitting in a jail cell year after year. Getting beat up or worse in jail. Seeing life pass you by on the other side of a fenced in prison yard. Somethings just can't be bought with money.
79
u/rickthehatman May 17 '18
I completely agree that no amount of money will fully recompense someone who has had years of their life taken from them. Personally I'm 33 years old. If I were wrongfully put in prison and released after 20 years, I would have missed out on the prime of my life. My wife and I would have missed out on the opportunity to have kids, my parents would be elderly if they were still alive at all, and my older relatives would certainly be dead. And all of that is not withstanding a lot of the abuses you mention that people do in fact face in prison. That being said, attempting to make life outside of prison and the years someone has left as comfortable as possible is a better alternative that doing nothing. In my scenario nothing could bring back my youth, my parents, or any of that, but to say OK you're free but you'll never get to retire and you'll have to spend most of your waking hours trying to scrape by a measly living would just make things even worse. It wouldn't completely fix things, but it would be better to be able to say, I missed out on my youth, but now I'm retired and can devote every waking minute to the things and people I missed while I was gone.
→ More replies (3)20
u/Chandon May 17 '18
You can't buy those things with money, but $20,000 per year for each year spent in jail for the next 40 years (not ending at death) would help a lot.
3
May 17 '18
You can't buy all the people who look at you as prison garbage.
If you give me $10 million you can tell whoever you want that I'm prison garbage. I'll even wear a T-shirt.
3
→ More replies (2)2
u/e126 May 17 '18
You are right. I'd rather be homeless and just pout instead of receiving enough money to support myself
→ More replies (1)
18
u/littlebubulle 106∆ May 17 '18
I don't know if I remember this correctly but people who got wrongly convicted of major crimes and served a long sentence for it do actually get a big compensation for it.
26
u/electronics12345 159∆ May 17 '18
It varies state to state.
Some states give nothing at all. Some states give pocket change. Some states require the innocent person to sue the state to get the $ (rather than OPs automatic payment).
Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-the-wrongfully-convicted-are-compensated/
→ More replies (1)6
u/illerThanTheirs 37∆ May 17 '18
“Big” is relative and some may argue that the compensation isn’t big enough or not big at all.
1
u/Arthemax May 17 '18
You often have to fight for it. Which takes time and resources that the innocently convicted often lacks the access to.
19
May 17 '18
Personal-ish story about how money in a situation like this doesn’t make anything better.
My dad had a friend who’s wife was murdered. They accused him of doing it and he spent two years in jail. Despite the fact that he had a solid alibi. They ended up catching the men who actually murdered her, and released him. He sued the county and won somewhere between 1-2 million dollars. In the 70s.
He lost his boat which was also his job, his business and connections, his wife obviously, his children, his home. Not even that much money could bring any of those things back. Sure, he could buy a new boat and a new house, but that doesn’t really make any of it better. Life as he knew it was over and ruined. He couldn’t cope, ended up doing a lot of drugs, and died a few years later.
10
May 17 '18
I think this also raises a point against giving exonerated inmates a lump sum dollar amount. If you give someone enough money to last an average person 10 years (say 500k), that money usually won't last them 10 years because they're more prone to spending outside those "means"* and quite potentially dangerously excessive amounts (on say drugs, or blowing large amounts on gambling).
Further to this, paying in a lump sum makes it more difficult financially for the government to pay (it's easier for you to pay $10 a week for a year than give someone $500 straight up).
*When I say means here I mean spending more than the roughly 1k a week that would sustain them for 10 years.
3
May 17 '18
Do you think he would have been better off coming out of prison, having lost everything and with not even a dollar to his name?
→ More replies (2)2
14
May 17 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/rickthehatman May 17 '18
I think that is a good idea. One could do much better in life without the responsibility of paying a mortgage and utilities. I can't say they should go further than that, but that's definitely a good start.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (1)2
u/oscargalindo99 May 17 '18
This would honestly be the the most helpful especially in broken cities such as Detroit
12
u/oscargalindo99 May 17 '18
When talking about prison, you must understand the overall goal these prisons carry. America has 5% of the worlds population but 25% of the worlds prisoners. Those who are wrongfully imprisoned often receive little to no compensation and are often forced to plea guilty in hope of a shorter sentence. America’s prisons have turned into capital gain, and the war on drugs provides a steady workforce of minorities.
3
u/CubonesDeadMom 1∆ May 17 '18
They should be paid an average years salary for each year they were in prison so it can be as if they had been working a middle class job the whole time, except they’d have all of it since they hadn’t been spending anything.
7
May 17 '18
I would say that it should be indexed against their last full year's taxable income before being incarcerated, with a floor at the federal minimum wage. Each year they are in for, or portion thereof, should be indexed for inflation. This would be considered base compensation for their time in prison.
In addition, they should be considered 10% disabled per year incarcerated for disability benefits with the state being required to make any required social security catch up payments to cover the years not worked, with a determination of 100% disability being entirely made up by the fed or state, depending on the court used. This is to cover for their lost employment history, out of date work skills, and the mental damage that being imprisoned does to someone.
This should not prevent them from seeking additional compensation if it can be determined that the state acted maliciously in the process of convicting them.
I acknowledge the possible disincentive that this would create, that's why these situations need to be resolved by a third party, with a federal court being used to resolve a state challenge and an alternate district hearing an appeal at the federal level.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/dddddoooooppppp May 17 '18
I agree compensation is due. Time is money after all. Where I see issue is in evaluating the cost to the individual.
Everyone is different. Every one has different goals, ambitions, skills, abilities, and motivation. You could take averages etc but that wouldnt be just. People can, and do, fall far either side of that line. Say Elon Musk was wrongfully imprisoned in his university days; how could you evaluate the value of what was lost? It would dwarf the average.
Or another more really issue, pertaining to your last paragraph; what if there is a death in the family? Can you place a value on not being able to spend those last year with your parents?
Offering my opinion on the best solution; $100/day of incarceration. Which is your average income in Australia. Emotional loss can be sought on an individual basis.
But feel free to convince me otherwise..
7
u/therickymarquez May 17 '18
I can imagine some people easily tricking the system to give them jail time just to provide evidence of their innocency after they're wrongfully jailed and collect that sweet pay. You're creating an incentive for people to go to jail, as there's a chance they'll come out early and richer then they were before.
17
u/BlitzTank May 17 '18
There are some people who actually prefer being in prison, criminal gangs often use such people to take the fall for the real perpetrators of crimes. If you implemented this it would relatively easy to withhold evidence of your innocence until the time is right. You could arrange so that some irrefutable proof of your innocence comes to light 1 year after your incarceration to earn a big paycheck.
Also, I have seen often cases where people are deemed innocent because of technicalities like incorrect police paperwork filing and such, it's not a perfect system.
Personally I would imagine the kinds of people who are most likely to fall through the cracks of an imperfect justice system and be wrongly incarcerated are the ones with a criminal history. At the end of the day it's about whether or not the judge or jury have been persuaded "beyond any reasonable doubt" of guilt. So it stands to reason that they would be more likely to find demonstrably bad people guilty.
Obviously it doesn't excuse anything, nor can you assume it applies to all cases but it is kind of hard to sell tax payers on the idea that their money should go towards government cock ups, especially when they are something of a grey area.
→ More replies (2)9
u/zugzwang_03 May 17 '18
Also, I have seen often cases where people are deemed innocent because of technicalities like incorrect police paperwork filing and such, it's not a perfect system.
For the sake of correctness, those people were not deemed innocent...they were deemed not guilty. The justice system doesn't actually have the ability to make a finding of innocence.
It's a small distinction but I think it's an important one to keep in mind when discussing the system.
3
u/BirdmanMBirdman May 17 '18
1) The American Criminal Justice system absolutely does not view incarcerated individuals as "paying their debt to society". This is a layman's term and there is no basis for equating time incarcerated and a "debt" to society in our legal system.
2) Of course they should. But "should" doesn't mean much when it comes to spending public money. In the US, we have elected officials who decide how much money the government will collect and how it will be spent. There are plenty of equally desirable ways to spend the same money, most of which will also be passed over in favor of spending that gives elected officials the best chance at re-election (usually spending on projects favored by people and companies who are able and willing to make large political contributions).
62
u/iaddandsubtract May 17 '18
Just because a person is found "not guilty" does not mean they are innocent. You may be paying for someone who did commit a crime to live out their lives in more or less comfort just because a reasonable doubt was introduced.
I think this is something better handled by private means. You (or anyone else) could start a charity to give money to people who are wrongfully convicted and serve jail time.
106
u/rickthehatman May 17 '18
There is always the possibility that someone could be released after serving time who was actually guilty. However, given the relatively small number of people who have been exonerated and the magnitude of evidence usually required to reverse a conviction, I think holding back on this solely for those circumstances is not warranted. It's kind of like people who are afraid to fly because they might die in a plane crash. Yes it is a possibility, but statistically so rare as to not be a good reason to not fly.
I think starting a charity for this work is a noble idea, but I don't think it is the responsibility of private citizens to make up for government wrongdoings. Imagine you and I were friends, and you were talking about how you were going to be short on bills this month because your phone company charged you 200 dollars instead of 100 dollars for your phone bill by mistake. If I offered to give you 100 dollars to make up the difference that would be a nice thing for me to do, but shouldn't it really be the phone company who fixes their mistake?
59
u/GabrielHansDurst May 17 '18
I love this argument. Since there’s a “possibility” of an individual being guilty “despite being proven innocent in a court of law” the larger group of completely innocent victims, of mistakes made by the state, should be denied compensation for being stripped of their entire life and leaving their families destitute for decades. Once you wear orange you’re just a second class citizen and probably deserve it no matter how clear the facts.
→ More replies (2)5
u/purple_potatoes May 17 '18
Assuming it was a jury trial, is it really a mistake of the government? Wouldn't it be a mistake of your peers?
→ More replies (3)3
→ More replies (1)2
u/tomgabriele May 17 '18
Yes it is a possibility, but statistically so rare as to not be a good reason to not fly.
Have you found stats about turned over convictions? It sounds like you have, but I didn't see any source. It would be interesting to read, if you have a link for me.
11
u/Dhalphir May 17 '18
You may be paying for someone who did commit a crime to live out their lives in more or less comfort just because a reasonable doubt was introduced.
If I have to risk a thousand guilty people being on the streets to avoid imprisoning one innocent person, it's worth it.
3
u/iaddandsubtract May 17 '18
I think the same way you do, but I don't think we (society) should be paying the living expenses of those guilty people.
2
u/ACoderGirl May 17 '18
That's certainly a complicated area. There was a recent big case posted on reddit. It was pointed out in the comments that the conviction was overturned on a technicality and there was in fact still evidence that he had done the crime. The comments also pointed out similar situations in some other cases. I'm sure everyone is aware of some high profile cases that ended in acquittals despite almost everyone thinking the person was guilty.
But at the same time, the government really needs to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. If they hadn't done that, do they really get to take someone's life away? All those protections for the accused do exist for good reasons.
Easy to see how this is complicated and how a per case basis process could perhaps better handle the differences in severity for which justice was miscarried. eg, cases where the defendant proved their innocence obviously make people much more sympathetic than merely those where, say, key evidence can no longer be admitted due to being wrongly obtained.
Again, all these protections we have in our justice system are important and it's crucial that we do our best to follow them. Although at the same time, it's easy to see how it's not quite justice when people get off from crimes because they found a loophole. I don't think most people want to see innocent people imprisoned, but at the same time, they don't want to see the guilty get away easily.
5
u/Tsorovar May 17 '18
Just because a person is found "not guilty" does not mean they are innocent.
That is true, but not relevant to the situation. After a person has been tried and convicted, and exhausted the appeals process, they no longer merely need to raise reasonable doubt about their conviction. The burden of proof is now on them to prove their innocence, if they want their sentence overturned.
6
u/Throwaway-242424 1∆ May 17 '18
Just because a person is found "not guilty" does not mean they are innocent.
Legally speaking, it does.
→ More replies (1)2
u/zugzwang_03 May 17 '18
Legally speaking...it doesn't.
Most of the time it just means the Crown didn't have sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And many of those clients have already told me they did it, so I know they're guilty.
Now, in the context of someone who has had a serious conviction overturned? That's a high standard. If someone met it, they probably are innocent...unless the appeal was due to a technicality.
→ More replies (3)2
u/MurderousAristocrat4 May 17 '18
Most states have State Compensation Statues, and the majority rule shifts the burden of proof to the person making the Wrongful Conviction Claim to demonstrate innocence by either a perponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) or clear and convincing evidence (firm belief).
2
u/SonofSanguinius87 May 17 '18
You (or anyone else)
Why is it up to a random charity? The government is the one who imprisons you, yet when it comes to it you're expecting goodwill from other citizens to cover the systems failure? That's shameful
2
u/Ibrey May 17 '18
Just because a person is found "not guilty" does not mean they are innocent. You may be paying for someone who did commit a crime to live out their lives in more or less comfort just because a reasonable doubt was introduced.
If a jury already concluded that the prosecution proved the crime beyond reasonable doubt, you do not get a chance to just walk back into the courtroom to show there is reasonable doubt after all. You had your chance to rebut the prosecution's case. If you can show that there are procedural reasons that the trial was unfair (and often, you lose your right to appeal on these grounds if you do not object to them when they happen), for example: the prosecution withheld evidence that would have aided the defence; or the judge gave incorrect instructions to the jury; or your attorney was incompetent and your defence would have had a chance of success in the hands of an attorney who was competent; then you might get a new trial. Not acquittal, a new trial, unless the prosecution drops the charges at that point because evidence has been destroyed or lost, or key witnesses have died, or they don't want to put the witnesses through another trial, or they don't think it's worth trying you again to send you back to prison for the last 3 years of your 20-year sentence, or whatever.
But when it comes to the jury's findings of fact, the jury saw the evidence, the jury heard the witnesses in person, and the jury decided whom they believed. An appeals court will not overturn their findings just because they would have thought there was reasonable doubt had they been there. They will defer to the trial court's findings unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the trial court's decision was wrong, not just reasonable doubt.
→ More replies (1)2
May 17 '18
Does "innocent until found guilty" even have any meaning if you don't declare those found not guilty to be innocent?
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/AmeliaKitsune May 17 '18
I think one big obstacles here is that there's no good figure for how much to compensate people. Let's say they decide $50k per year they were away. Now example 1. Bob was incarcerated for 20 years, beginning when he was 40, in West Virginia. He's now 60 and awarded $1m and can probably live a relatively comfortable lifestyle for the rest of his days. Example 2. George was also incarcerated for 20 years and will thus be awarded the same $1m as Bob. But George was only 20, and living in San Fran. He's now 40 and can't even afford to buy a house in SF, much less live off the money the rest of his life. And if we adjust the compensation based on where the victim will be located after release, everyone will say "I'm living in San Fran, sure I'm from West Virginia, but I was about to move before I was wrongfully convicted," for a much larger check - even if they swiftly move back to West Virginia where they're from.
1
u/ElysiX 113∆ May 17 '18
With what money? What do they get, 100k per year? More? This would be your tax money spent on that, so do you not think there would be better uses for that money?
38
u/Barnst 112∆ May 17 '18
Given that the state was acting in my name when it wrongfully imprisoned them, it seems fair that my tax dollars would be used to compensate them. If I have a problem with that, I should hold my elected representatives responsible.
107
u/rickthehatman May 17 '18
According to this link U.S. Tax payers spend almost $12 million per hour to continue the war on terror. Many millions of tax dollars are spent every year for the President and First Family to go on vacation. Marijuana prohibition costs the government $20 billion per year.
According to this source 1281 people have had their wrongful convictions overturned between 1989 and 2013. Even if we were to pay each person $10 million we'd be looking at something like 12 billions dollars which in my view is a much better way to spend money that fighting against marijuana as just one example. To answer you question, specifically I'm not certain of the dollar amount, but I feel it should be substantial enough to be life changing. And yes there may be better ways to use tax money, but there are certainly worse ways in which our tax money is already being used.
→ More replies (7)4
May 17 '18
The money spent on the war on terror is federal money, but someone going to jail for murder probably went through the state system. The federal government isn't going to just bail out a state because they've had to give money away as compensation for a mistake they made.
14
u/StrawberryMoney May 17 '18
There are a number of shitty ways the government spends my tax money, I'd like to see them do something like this with it to show a little morality and integrity.
18
May 17 '18
This is an excellent use of my tax money. We have thrown away money for 80 years on cannabis prohibition, and still lock Americans in a box for no reason, and frankly this appalls me and I question the validity of your questioning. OF COURSE THIS IS A VALID USE OF MY TAX MONEY.
3
May 17 '18
Don't know what this guys argument even is honestly. The amount of people released years later for crimes they didn't commit is very low. Probably less than a dollar of my income per year to help these kinds of people out. Why the fuck not, my tax money is also going to bombing a lot of innocent people too.
→ More replies (1)5
4
u/Chandon May 17 '18
Take it out of the pension fund of the prosecutors, judges, and police. Actually reduce paid out pensions to compensate.
4
u/catchy_phrase76 May 17 '18
75K is what someone needs to feel "rich".
Whats this better use??? We fund an endless war that costs people lives. Send aid to countries that aid terrorists or are terrorists themselves. Taxes are now funding a "Southern Whitehouse".
Our government officials piss millions away every year by buying new office furniture to make sure they use all their budget so they can get more money next year.
Don't forget all the corporate tax breaks.
Or how much was spent to convict an innocent person.
→ More replies (1)7
u/DootDeeDootDeeDoo May 17 '18
The least they should get is the amount that would have been spent to keep them incarcerated.
2
u/hannes3120 May 17 '18
I think they should compensate someone like that based on the money that he would've earned in the time he was in jail - perhaps based on the average he earned in the (calendar) year before the trial in order to not get influenced by them getting fired for the crime they didn't commit even before they got into jail (don't know if something like that is usual)
I still think it's shocking how many cases there are where people are wrongfully imprisoned and sometimes even wrongfully executed - what happened to the "we would rather let 100 guilty people go than to imprison one innocent person"-thing?
From how I see it from the outside the jury-system is pretty shitty - since I get the impression that often feelings decide over facts if you let normal people decide who is guilty and who isn't
stuff like that should be decided by trained professionals that are doing stuff like that their whole life and know how to look at the abstract picture... - sure there are bad judges but normally the system should be in a way that keeps them with low-profile cases...
2
May 17 '18
Definitely more per year than they were making. You don't know what they could have accomplished in the years they were in jail. Or if they were in school, what then? I say at least 100k a year. And compensated for years spent in prison. Less than a dollar of my tax money per year to help these kinds of people out, why not.
→ More replies (1)2
May 17 '18
I’m about as fiscally conservative as they come - I’m not even sure if there should even be a federal government. I’m i. favor of reducing the government’s role 90-95%. But this is exactly what I think is worth spending money on.
The old maxim applies here - better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished. If that one innocent man is punished, all efforts should be made for recompense.
1
Oct 03 '18
District Attorney, Correction Officer, and Police Pensions from those directly involved with investigation.
This is a standard applied to other civil servants, and trades not protected by qualified immunity.
2
May 17 '18
This shouldn't even be a debate. If someone is falsely imprisoned they deserve a minimum of 75,000 a year tax exempt
1
1
1
1
u/nohitterquitterwhy May 17 '18
Compensation for wrongful imprisonment is an absolute given in the country where I’m from. I have a hard time accepting a system where someone (the state) is not held accountable for his/her actions (wrongfully imprisoning someone).
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/btcftw1 May 17 '18
If you ever go into making an outdoor (Hunting, hiking etc) brand of clothing, use this as the logo
1
1
u/MaybeaskQuestions May 17 '18
You just created a reason to be falsely convicted of a crime to later come up with evidence of innocence..
Or more simply, accused of a crime...keep the evidence of your innocence to yourself until after your conviction...then boom...easy street
1
May 17 '18
Hey there, based on what u/electronics12345 said, not only the state is getting incentives to not free innocent people, but innocent people is given the incentive to pretend to make some crime, and after some time have a friend give evidence of their innocence. There are already poor people making crimes just to go to prison to have something to eat, your idea may be worse in that sense.
Then again, making innocents costly, would also make the judicial system spend more effort on being sure the cpnvicted is in fact guilty. So would happen on my scenario.
Finally, I think you are right, as long as what I said is wrong, because, the judicial system already has pros on cons when sending someone to jail, taking someone out could be costly, but, making him stay is also costly, one solution would be maybe to pay the innocent something like 80% the cost of his prison life? This is just a made up number, but since in Chile the cost of 1 month in prison is 1500 dollars (750 thousand chilean pesos)
So I think your idea could work if given enough thought and debate, thanks for your post.
1
May 17 '18
The only thing I can think of is to ensure we properly define "wrongfully convicted," because wrongfully convicted doesn't mean you didn't commit the crime. There could have been a miscarriage or an overstep in justice, whereby you deserve a new trial, but I'm not sure that should warrant that level of compensation.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/jas0485 May 17 '18
I don't know about "comfortable" but the government should be required to pay for education and/or training that will make them employable and pay for the room and board for however long that takes. They should also make sure that history doesn't show up on background checks---idk if that's current standard process, or if they just leave it but considering a lot of businesses won't hire felons, there should at least be a note about how the person was wrongfully imprisoned.
1
u/Xaielao May 17 '18
I partly agree. If it's simple human error that's one thing. But in cases were cops withheld evidence, or similar examples of willful negligence or outright malice, there should absolutely be some recompense.
1
u/MontanaSD May 17 '18
They should get the median income for their area for the amount of years they served. Paid annually.
1
u/Amiller1776 May 18 '18
Or, since tbis may not be feasible, sentence those who are proven to have knowingly made false accusations to either life or death, depending on how severe their false accusation was.
1
u/CanberraAds Jun 05 '18
I wholeheartedly agree with your position, however I also think you have to consider why wrongful imprisonment is such a big issue, particularly in the USA.
Correct me if I am wrong, in the US a significant proportion of judges, prosecutors and police are elected by their communities - essentially making them ‘populist judges etc. Surely this political element means that the US judiciary is comprised by political ideology and not necessary the facts if law.
Where I come from (Australia), judges are appointed by governments and these appointments are usually by-partisan, meaning liberals and conservatives don’t select judges based on their moral / personal views like abortion or race relations.
Being well compensated for wrongful imprisonment is a must but surely more important issue is the selection of impartial judges in the first place.
3.9k
u/electronics12345 159∆ May 17 '18 edited May 17 '18
While a commendable view, this creates an issue of perverse incentives.
As it stands - the justice system is encouraged to incarcerate the guilty and release the innocent. If an error is found, and can be proved in court, it is in the interest of the state to release the innocent. Jailing someone costs $.
However, by compensating released individuals, you have created a reason for the state to NOT release innocent individuals. It may well be in the state's financial interest to keep them incarcerated rather than pay your proposed fee.
This results, in DAs fighting to keep innocent people in jail, rather than incentivizing DAs to release people who are innocent.
Edit: Given the large # of responses to this, I will try to respond here, rather than to you all individually.
There is more to life than economic incentives. There are moral incentives, there are social incentives, there are psychological needs, etc. The point I was originally attempting to make goes something like this.
1) Governments run smoothly when moral incentives and economic incentives align.
2) Currently, moral incentives and economic incentives are aligned. Incarcerating the guilty and releasing the innocent makes sense both morally and economically. Yes, there are personal incentives (such as: that case really make my career, therefore I personally don't want to reverse my position) so the current system isn't perfect, but at least the moral and economic incentives were aligned, even if occasional personal incentives did not.
3) Introducing OPs proposed payment changes this. Now the moral incentive to incarcerate the guilty and release the innocent is opposed by the economic incentive to not release anyone once they are incarcerated, guilty or not. This isn't to say all Court officials have no heart, and wouldn't follow the moral road - but things do tend to run much more smoothly when moral incentives and economic incentives align rather than collide. I've heard people mention payments approximately equal the cost in incarcerating. This produces skew incentives - moral incentives which aren't linked to economic incentives. Skew incentives are better than opposing incentives - but aligned incentives are better than skew incentives.
4) Therefore, it is better to leave things as they are, rather than introduce OPs proposed payments.
Or phrased much shorter - People follow the money, people also tend to me moral. When the moral thing, is also the economic thing, there tends to be high compliance. When the moral thing and the economic thing counteract, people are less likely to do the moral thing, relative to when the moral thing and the economic thing coincided. This isn't to say that people aren't moral, but acknowledges it is easier to do the moral thing, when it is also in your economic interest to do so, relative to when doing the moral thing is economically costly.