Wrongfully accused and arrested.

[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.

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?

Oh, absolutely. DNA evidence can be a great tool to close the book on a case when evidence can't quite do it. It can also be used (and has been used) to clear people of crimes after they are accused. It's just not an instant process either way and in the vast majority of investigations police are going to shoot for a full suite of evidence, witness testimony and, if possible, a confession. Also bear in mind that DNA is really only overly useful in cases with direct explicit physical contact such as when rape is involved.

 

[Chrono180]

I never thought required; no, it shouldn't be allowed, and apparently you'd be surprised how little it would happen if you had your way.

Besides, have you ever killed someone? No? Even someone that has horribly wronged you would be hard to kill. If you have killed somebody, fine. That doesn't make your proposed rule decent. Besides, how is more murder going to help? More than likely, and I said this before, it will just make the person guilty of what he was accused of in the first place.

First of all, it would not be "murder". The term "murder" implies that the dead guy has not done anything to deserve death. Much like how a guy getting the death penalty is not "murder" (according to most people, at least) allowing the retribution killing of a person who ruined another person's life would not be "murder" either.

Second, while I have never killed anybody, I doubt most people would have guilt over killing someone that ruined their lives. I bet that if you really hate someone enough, killing them is easy. After all, if its so hard to kill people, why are there so many murders in the news?

 

[ryukage_sama]

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.

"the person", as in one person? Not 13+? There is at least one prosecutor who gets testimony, reports, and lab results from dozens of other people to convince a jury of 12 people to render a guilty verdict (assuming this is the U.S.A.). Just remember the distinction between justice and vengeance. There is a reason the victims and their families are not the ones who give out the punishment. At most, they are allowed to petition for sentencing and watch executions.

At least here, there is a burden of proof on the prosecution. In some relatively progressive, democratic countries, the accused don't have much of a chance of fending off a conviction once a formal accusation is made. Japan has decades of court decisions where a guilty verdict is predetermined by the police and the judge. At least now the country is trying a quasi-jury system with a panel of judges including lay people who have a vote in determining a verdict.

 

[xdom125x]

I thought they can sue for a large amount of money and if they ever get charged with a crime they could be punished with time served.

 

[DazZ.]

They should get however much time they spent in taken off their next sentence.

Say they spent 10 years, they can do a little shoplifting and have it taken off their "prison time" card for however much each time they get caught would have been.

 

[Chrono180]

Well, maybe I was acting on my own usually passive personality. But I doubt that anyone getting out of jail after decades is going to want to murder anybody (and yes, that would simply be murder); they're still going to just want to get back to normal.

You may be a person who would do it. But riddle me this: What will it solve and how will it help? Answer me that, with an answer more legitimate than some variation of "it will make me feel better".

Perhaps I was a tad general in my initial declaration. Let me elaborate.

My viewpoint is that if someone commits perjury(which, in my mind, should be a capital crime) in a case where the accused winds up in jail and is later proven to have been falsely accused, then the person who committed perjury should be tried, and if convicted, the accused should be allowed to be the executor. Now, I also believe that the standards of convicting someone of perjury are unreasonably high, as you normally have to prove that the person lied intentionally. This is unlike most crimes where, if you commit it, you get convicted regardless of intention or awareness. I feel that if you can prove that the person lied under oath, regardless of intention, then that should be grounds for conviction.

If we make it so that people who falsely accuse others of severe crimes run the risk of losing their lives themselves, we can reduce the number of false accusations. As it is, too many people have their lives ruined in cases where there simply is hardly any physical evidence, but the jury convicts them anyway. Put simply, it is an incentive for charges to only be brought against people when there is tangible physical evidence rather than merely on, say, witness testimony, which has been proven to be completely unreliable but is used all the time anyway.

 

[rutger5000]

Keep things simple. Give them the amount of money they would have earned during jail-time minus what they would have spend and let the government give tax reduction to the company that is willing to hire/house/educate the fasly accused, so it's easier for them to re-enter society.
And if they went to a high security prison then also give them some free (but not obligated) therapy. I think I could use some if I went to an American prison, that is if I would believe in shrinks.
Ideas like a jail card (spending less time next time they go to prison) is absolutely absurd. That is cheering them on to go into criminality.
As for those who believe the "an eye for an eye" thing, let me just quote one of the greatest humans of the 20th century: "an eye for an eye only makes the world go blind". Those who seek revenge are no better then the ones who committed injustice towards them, and therefor should be treated the same.
Punishment should be used as a educational tool and a warning, not to make the victims feel better.
I'm not saying that I wouldn't kill the murderer of my child (if I would ever have one, and he/she would be murdered), but only that I should be charged and convicted for murder just the same.

 

[rutger5000]

Well, maybe I was acting on my own usually passive personality. But I doubt that anyone getting out of jail after decades is going to want to murder anybody (and yes, that would simply be murder); they're still going to just want to get back to normal.

You may be a person who would do it. But riddle me this: What will it solve and how will it help? Answer me that, with an answer more legitimate than some variation of "it will make me feel better".

Perhaps I was a tad general in my initial declaration. Let me elaborate.

My viewpoint is that if someone commits perjury(which, in my mind, should be a capital crime) in a case where the accused winds up in jail and is later proven to have been falsely accused, then the person who committed perjury should be tried, and if convicted, the accused should be allowed to be the executor. Now, I also believe that the standards of convicting someone of perjury are unreasonably high, as you normally have to prove that the person lied intentionally. This is unlike most crimes where, if you commit it, you get convicted regardless of intention or awareness. I feel that if you can prove that the person lied under oath, regardless of intention, then that should be grounds for conviction.

If we make it so that people who falsely accuse others of severe crimes run the risk of losing their lives themselves, we can reduce the number of false accusations. As it is, too many people have their lives ruined in cases where there simply is hardly any physical evidence, but the jury convicts them anyway. Put simply, it is an incentive for charges to only be brought against people when there is tangible physical evidence rather than merely on, say, witness testimony, which has been proven to be completely unreliable but is used all the time anyway.

I'm normally not a person to actually attack someones political ideas, but are you out of your mind? It's possible that I misunderstand you. Are you saying that you should be executed if you tell a lie by accident while under oath?
Can't you see that nobody would be willing to testify if such a law would be in place. Executing a person for willingly telling a lie while under oath is one thing, but doing so regardless of intention is outright absurd.
If you want to reduce the number of falsely accused then you should have a reasonable justice system. One without a public jury, they are simply incompetent (it's not their fault, but they simply are). A jury might have been a good idea in the times of the wild west. But now better alternatives are available.

 

[Agayek]

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?

What they deserve is a time machine and an undo button for the last X years (X being the number of years they spent imprisoned).

What they actually get is a monetary sum. I think it amounts to roughly double what they would have earned in that period were they free. I could be wrong in that though, it's from a half-remembered anecdote I heard a few years ago.

I'm more of the persuasion that in addition to the monetary gains, the accuser (being whoever actually named the wrongly-accused) should suffer the exact same sentence the releasee did.

 

[OldAccount]

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.

and that whoever did commit the crime is walking free...

 

[Agayek]

I'm normally not a person to actually attack someones political ideas, but are you out of your mind? It's possible that I misunderstand you. Are you saying that you should be executed if you tell a lie by accident while under oath?
Can't you see that nobody would be willing to testify if such a law would be in place. Executing a person for willingly telling a lie while under oath is one thing, but doing so regardless of intention is outright absurd.
If you want to reduce the number of falsely accused then you should have a reasonable justice system. One without a public jury, they are simply incompetent (it's not their fault, but they simply are). A jury might have been a good idea in the times of the wild west. But now better alternatives are available.

Not to say it's right or wrong, but what are the alternatives to a jury? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any alternatives that are even equal in terms of "fair-ness", let alone superior.

 

[ajemas]

I think that they are compensated. However, this isn't the best solution (in my opinion). Why? Because it's boring! You should be allowed to commit a crime equal to the amount of jail that you had! Served for 20 years? You should be allowed to punch the judge who sentenced you in the first place! I think that this method is far more cathartic, and fun to watch.

 

[Caligulove]

I think most do end up suing the state. One of the few times that a lawsuit is unquestionably justified.

that and i know that when they are officially released from incarceration, they are given an apology of sorts from the presiding judge. I imagine that means very little, though, since x number of years cannot be given back, no matter how many times someone might say that or apologize.

Personally, I think any false arrests or incarcerations should be expunged from a person's record and that they are not classified as an ex-con or a felon. Someone else overlooking a detail in their job shouldn't permanently stand in someones way to find work or to vote.

 

[Agayek]

First of all, it would not be "murder". The term "murder" implies that the dead guy has not done anything to deserve death. Much like how a guy getting the death penalty is not "murder" (according to most people, at least) allowing the retribution killing of a person who ruined another person's life would not be "murder" either.

Second, while I have never killed anybody, I doubt most people would have guilt over killing someone that ruined their lives. I bet that if you really hate someone enough, killing them is easy. After all, if its so hard to kill people, why are there so many murders in the news?

That all depends on the person. People can and have come to greatly regret taking a life, even when not doing so would have cost the lives of their entire family. It's never easy for an untrained, unbloodied, mentally stable person to take a life, regardless of why.

Though I would agree with you that such isn't technically murder.

 

[Irridium]

This is probably the reason people on death row have to wait so long before they're killed. So the authorities can make absolute sure they're guilty.

As for what they should get, depends on how much they were punished.

If its punished for a small infraction, they should get a small form of compensation.
If its larger, then they should get a larger compensation.

As for what those compensations should be, I have no idea.

 

[CaptainKoala]

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?

The government gives them a very generous amount of money every day. For each day they were wrongfully imprisoned. I think the government only does this if they promise not to sue, but I don't know that for sure.

As for your discussion question: I have no idea. If you're in prison for 20 years and get let out, there isn't anything anyone can do that would mean anything to you. But money comes close, especially when the government gives you lots in a check every day.

 

[Agayek]

You may be a person who would do it. But riddle me this: What will it solve and how will it help? Answer me that, with an answer more legitimate than some variation of "it will make me feel better".

I just gotta ask, why is "I'll feel better" such a bad reason for it? I happen to agree with you that the concept is kinda silly, but the whole system of justice is based around the "but it will make us feel better" mentality. It always has been and it always will be. You can dress it up in whatever flowery bullshit you like, it's not going to change the fact that the whole reason we have prisons and courts is to make society at large feel better and more secure about itself.

 

[rutger5000]

I'm normally not a person to actually attack someones political ideas, but are you out of your mind? It's possible that I misunderstand you. Are you saying that you should be executed if you tell a lie by accident while under oath?
Can't you see that nobody would be willing to testify if such a law would be in place. Executing a person for willingly telling a lie while under oath is one thing, but doing so regardless of intention is outright absurd.
If you want to reduce the number of falsely accused then you should have a reasonable justice system. One without a public jury, they are simply incompetent (it's not their fault, but they simply are). A jury might have been a good idea in the times of the wild west. But now better alternatives are available.

Not to say it's right or wrong, but what are the alternatives to a jury? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any alternatives that are even equal in terms of "fair-ness", let alone superior.

A judge! An untrained jury is simply not capable to make a well thought out decision based on the evidence and testimonies given. Apart from that they are also relatively easy to threaten, bribed or mislead by a skillful lawyer. A judge who has studied for many years, is trained not to be dragged away by his/her emotions, keeps up-to-date on modern investigation theories, has extensive knowledge about humans and is easier to protect and harder to bribe (it should be easy to see wetter the judge suddenly gets a big heap of cash) is a completely different story.
A jury is simply unfair. If the defendant would a ugly socially awkward (or lets face it a black) person then he or she is much more likely to be convicted by a jury then a pretty young white girl. A jury could be considered fair if they were not allowed to see the defendant and the accusers, all the people who testify have their voices altered, and all the lawyers were assigned by the state and of equal skill. Then a jury could be considered as just, but a judge would still be better.

 

[Danpascooch]

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.

I hope you're kidding, nobody would ever accuse anyone if this was the case, even if they had overwhelming evidence

 

[Danpascooch]

I never thought required; no, it shouldn't be allowed, and apparently you'd be surprised how little it would happen if you had your way.

Besides, have you ever killed someone? No? Even someone that has horribly wronged you would be hard to kill. If you have killed somebody, fine. That doesn't make your proposed rule decent. Besides, how is more murder going to help? More than likely, and I said this before, it will just make the person guilty of what he was accused of in the first place.

First of all, it would not be "murder". The term "murder" implies that the dead guy has not done anything to deserve death. Much like how a guy getting the death penalty is not "murder" (according to most people, at least) allowing the retribution killing of a person who ruined another person's life would not be "murder" either.

Second, while I have never killed anybody, I doubt most people would have guilt over killing someone that ruined their lives. I bet that if you really hate someone enough, killing them is easy. After all, if its so hard to kill people, why are there so many murders in the news?

Whenever you kill someone who is not about to cause you grievous bodily injury, it's murder.

The accuser obviously was reasonable in accusing you if an entire jury was convinced you were guilty, what you are proposing is that we murder anyone who is wrong.