Wrongfully accused and arrested.

[RatRace123]

I was just thinking about something.
Despite the extensive use of DNA in most cases, sometimes people still get wrongfully accused and jailed.
When/if they are proven innocent, what do they get for an apology for all the time they spent behind bars?

What do you think the wrongfully accused should get? Should they be allowed to sue the city/state that put them behind bars they didn't earn?

 

[NeedAUserName]

I think, or at least hope, they get a pretty big chunk of compensation.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Here they get monetary compensation for the time spent.

 

[Omikron009]

I was under the impression that they generally get a substantial amount of money. What they really deserve is a time machine. I read in the news recently about a guy who spent something like 27 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit. That would be the most depressing thing in the world, waking up every day knowing your life has been ruined for no reason.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

If I recall, I think they get a large sum of money ( Around 8 mil?) But really, there is nothing in the world that can compensate going to prison for fuck all.

 

[Chrono180]

There are some places where the law allows monetary compensation, but personally I don't think that's enough. In my mind, if it can be demonstratively proven that a person was wrongly convicted, then the wrongfully convicted person should be allowed to kill the person who falsely accused them.

 

[hypercube]

I'm pretty sure they can get monetary compensation for being wrongfully imprisoned, but I'd hope they would get some sort of support and counselling afterwards - that's something that would really mess your mind up and being removed from society for that length of time would leave you very isolated.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Not sure what you get, but it never really makes up for it.

I mean, once people see that and get used to it (since it will usually be a highly publicized thing) they'll from their own opinions. Besides, if you go for a job and they say why havent you worked in _________ months/years and you say you were in jail, odds are you wont get very far. and depending on why you were there, it will only make it worse. If you get (wrongly) put in for murder, or white collar theft, or... I dont know.. something like child porn or something, people are going to wonder, they're going to think, and it will just create a bad image. Besides, you'll be a disturbance to work, because even if by grace of god you are completely forgiven and/or people honestly believe you didnt do it, they're gonna ask you about it, and its gonna come up.

So yeah. Time machines should be what they get. though in America, I wouldnt be surprised if we gave you enough money for a bus ticket to the closest city and said you're on your own, good luck. Especially if you dont have family or friends you can stay with, and especially if they're not even close you could go to.

 

[ShadowStar42]

Yeah, they aught to get an apology and they can generally sue for unlawful imprisonment (in the US at least). However, "extensive use of DNA in most cases" is a gross exaggeration, while we hear a lot about DNA using in cases these days its actually fairly rare that it is used to prove guilt or innocence.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

I'm pretty sure they get some financial compensation to account for damages, but that's not always what everyone is thinking of. A person who has been in jail for a long time may just wish to have his years back or something or just be happy to be out and now able to see his family.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Generally the wrongfully accused get some form of monetary compensation as well as a legal pardon (plus public apology, depending on the exact situation).

One thing to point out about the use of DNA and similar evidence requiring scientific process is that it sadly doesn't work like it does on your favourite prime time crime drama. You can't pop anything you want into the apparatus and have it pop out an exact result print out in a few seconds. DNA evidence isn't often used in the actual arrest process unless it happens to be a really drawn out example. It's more something that can solidify extensive investigation and other gathered proof or, of course, to clear someone of direct involvement in a crime.

 

[Madara XIII]

I was just thinking about something.
Despite the extensive use of DNA in most cases, sometimes people still get wrongfully accused and jailed.
When/if they are proven innocent, what do they get for an apology for all the time they spent behind bars?

What do you think the wrongfully accused should get? Should they be allowed to sue the city/state that put them behind bars they didn't earn?

Actually they do get paid quite a bit in compensation for the time they lost if proven innocent.

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

They get to murder everyone who put them behind bars. Ok not really, but they should get something, really good. In fact I dont think theres anything you could do for someone that would make them feel better if they have been in prison for 20 yrs, for no reason. Had a family? RUINED! Job? GONE! SO yeah unless I could get those things back plus extra life time, I'd be pretty pissed.

 

[Chrono180]

An eye for an eye, buddy. Look, that wouldn't solve a damn thing. The person who spent that many years in prison would get what from that? Decades back? No, he'd get a heaping of guilt on top of the depression on top of having to relearn many things and get used to being back in the world. The only thing he wouldn't have to worry about is money, because hopefully he would have gotten a very large compensation that is directly proportionate to the time he spent and where he spent it.

I said "allowed" not "required", and frankly I think "eye for an eye" would be a better system in this case. I know if I had to endure such a occurrence, the only thing keeping me going would likely be revenge, and I am sure many people would feel the same. Sure, it may not solve the guy losing years of his life, but I doubt anything else will either.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Financial compensation I think they get anyways, but if they lost their job they should get that back.

Sadly, that's all they can get back since time is not kind and they will not being getting anything back that was taken from them that isn't physical. Which is unfortunate because they did nothing wrong and now they have this stigma that they were in jail even though they were there unlawfully.

Money, an apology, and a good luck is probably the most they are gonna get from the government.

 

[RatRace123]

Generally the wrongfully accused get some form of monetary compensation as well as a legal pardon (plus public apology, depending on the exact situation).

One thing to point out about the use of DNA and similar evidence requiring scientific process is that it sadly doesn't work like it does on your favourite prime time crime drama. You can't pop anything you want into the apparatus and have it pop out an exact result print out in a few seconds. DNA evidence isn't often used in the actual arrest process unless it happens to be a really drawn out example. It's more something that can solidify extensive investigation and other gathered proof or, of course, to clear someone of direct involvement in a crime.

I'm not gonna lie, I actually was using TV drama logic when I mentioned DNA.
It did get a few innocent people released though, didn't it?

 

[supermariner]

in Britain they do get compensated financially
how much is proportional to how long they were in prison and how much they lost as a result
job/property/family etc.

 

[Calcium]

I believe it depends on where you live, how much time you spent in jail, and what the crime you were accused of was. In generel I imagine it to be a formal apology and cash compensation.

Stealing some item from a store? Not too bad.
Being accused of murdering your children and being plastered all over the news for it? Very, very serious. A woman in the UK was wrongfully convicted of this a few years ago.

The idea that someone could be accused with seemingly watertight evidence and yet be innocent is in my mind the greatest reason not to have a death penalty. I'm not a supporter for or against it.

 

[dibblywibbles]

yeah they tend to get a chunk of money from whoever put them behind bars. here it's pretty easy, they get it from the federal government if they've been wrongfully jailed for over two years(anything over two years in canada is considered federal jurisdiction regardless of which province the alleged crime took place in). the money though really depends on how good your lawyer is. as far as I'm concerned if you're wrongfully convicted you should get compensation from the government for ruining their life. don't kid yourself, you have ruined this man or woman's life. Sorry David.

 

[FaceFaceFace]

An eye for an eye, buddy. Look, that wouldn't solve a damn thing. The person who spent that many years in prison would get what from that? Decades back? No, he'd get a heaping of guilt on top of the depression on top of having to relearn many things and get used to being back in the world. The only thing he wouldn't have to worry about is money, because hopefully he would have gotten a very large compensation that is directly proportionate to the time he spent and where he spent it.

I said "allowed" not "required", and frankly I think "eye for an eye" would be a better system in this case. I know if I had to endure such a occurrence, the only thing keeping me going would likely be revenge, and I am sure many people would feel the same. Sure, it may not solve the guy losing years of his life, but I doubt anything else will either.

Just because someone is wrongfully accused doesn't mean the person doing the accusing was lying. Prosecutors, a judge, and a jury were all mistaken about his guilt as well. Why not just let them kill everyone involved in the trial?

Another question, would you ever put forward evidence that you think someone committed a crime knowing that if they are convicted but innocent you can die? It would destroy the legal system.