Should wrongfully imprisoned people get compensation?

Great Debates
21

hansel:

Sua’s point was that innocent people can be imprisoned without anyone doing anything wrong. In your examples of prosecutors who go forward with nonexistant cases, I would consider that to constitute misconduct. So I would agree with you that prosecutors should be deterred from proceeding with nonexistant cases, and that the falsely imprisoned person should be able to sue the people who commited the misconduct. But that doesn’t mean they should be held responsible when the evidence truly did point at someone who turned out to be innocent.

I do think that in many or most cases an innocent person who was imprisoned should get compensation, although not a huge amount. But what about cases where the imprisoned had commited other crimes at the same time as the crime which they currently in jail for, and in the process of commiting these crimes they created evidence which would later be used to convict them for a crime they did not commit? For example, if someone goes on a mugging spree, mugging 12 people in a month in a certain area, and then there is a murder in that same area and they are convicted even though they didn’t do it, because they created the evidence that would lead to them. In other words, it is really their fault they were convicted, and they caused the real murderer to get away. Should they be compensated?

Sua:

True. But remember that our legal system includes more than prosecutors and judges and juries. Even if all three of those acted as they should, it may be that the police did not try hard enough to find evidence, or that the police just decided who was guilty and stopped looking. After that, it doesn’t matter that the prosecutor and jury did their job perfectly. The system has already failed before the trial.

22

Our legal system also assumes that the people, via our elected officials, made the laws. Any way you slice it, the burden is on the voters. Whether the voters roughly approximate taxpayers is another issue, I think.

23

does anyone know what the actual statistics on false imprisonments are? how many people are locked up for long periods of time, and set free when new evidence comes to light?

hell, i don’t know, it may even be possible for the government to fund compensation. if it’s only like 4 people a year, what’s another $200k on the annual budget?

maybe it’s not even a problem as such.

24

I wasn’t clear in my post, then: I think that prosecutors should have a deterrent, regardless. A prosecutor should be worried about a miscarriage of justice that occurs without misconduct on her part. I don’t think she should be held personally liable, but I don’t see why she shouldn’t have to consider the possibility that, if she’s wrong, she’ll send an innocent person to jail, and that there are real consequences to that.

25

Under my proposal, no. The DAs shouldn’t be allowed to carry malpractice insurance to cover them from instances of prosecutorial misconduct. This wouldn’t be that much of a change; malpractice insurance today generally only covers negligence, not intentional misconduct.

And if there is no misconduct, the compensation would come out of a trust fund, so no malpractice insurance would be required.

Sua

26

IMO, before we discuss monetary compensation to those incarcerated when innocent, we need to reevaluate the justice system to help prevent such errors.

Make every criminal law attorney work 3-4 cases a year pro bono. I have yet to meet a public defender who is not either wet behind the ears or older than Methusaleh. So the attorneys do not “scrimp” on effort, make it part of renewing his/her license. There have been numerous studies on the effects of bad public defenders. (I will add cites tonight when I am at home)

Quit shoving plea bargains down throats. I have read articles where people who were innocent were battered down so much they took plea bargains just to stop the torment.

There are other area that need to be looked at. Our jurisprudence system is heavy with glad handing wannabe politicos who view the bench and/or the attorneys seat as a stepstool up the ladder of power. Not all of them-I do know quite a few county attorneys who are in it for the love of the duty. But others…

Stop sensationalizing crime. CourtTV, this summers Law and Order reality version, etc etc. It inappropriately makes media stars out of the attorneys/judges (remember the Ito dancers on Leno?)

Back on topic: While incarcerated, people have the ability to attain GED’s, diplomas, and bachelors degrees (I am not sure whether they are able to earn Masters or Doctorates). They can learn trades. Things you and I must pay for. If they had been sent away somewhere not considered prison, they would have an ability to find employment easily. So, we should pay for the stigma of a prison education?
Of course, this is if we just discussing what they may have missed economically. Socially is a different matter, but I do not know how we could compensate for lost social relationships.
Let’s see-you’re pretty handsome, could’ve gottem married…sooo…$10K for pain and suffering. You sir? Well, you’d be luck if a blind circus carny would call you his bitch…sooo…nothing.

27

I do not understand those who say the state has the right to incarcerate someone but does not have any responsibility if they make a mistake. It is only fair to compensate someone who was imprisioned by mistake.

In Spain, the constitution guarantees this compensation:

28

sailor, the Spanish constitution’s provision doesn’t guarantee compensation to all those wrongly convicted - only those wrongly convicted because of judicial error and/or the “abnormal operation” of the admininstration of justice. It doesn’t provide for compensation of those properly convicted based on the then-available evidence.

Sua

29

Sua, I am quite sure “judicial error” in Spanish would cover the case of an innocent person being convicted but I just speak Spanish and I am not a lawyer. I believe the wording does cover such a case and the intention is there. In practice though, Spain has a judicial system which is apallingly bad in every sense so trying to get compensation might be worse than the time one spent in prison. _

30

I think that the chain of people between those I actually vote for and those who make the decisions is too long to be able to assign responsibility for their mistakes to me. I don’t vote for the lawyers. I don’t vote for the juries. I don’t vote for the judges. I don’t vote for the cops. I may vote for the chief of police who hires the guy who hires the guy who decides to hire the cop who investigated the case. I may vote for DA who hired the guy who hired the prosecuting attorney who helped select the jury. But I still fail to see why I, personally, should be financially responsible for monies above and beyond those required to pay for damages.

The point is, the whole idea of punitive damages against someone is an extra incentive to make sure they don’t do whatever bad thing they did again. Doesn’t that kind of imply that the people who did the bad thing should be the ones who pay? How is the government punished by raising our taxes to pay for their mistakes? If the mistakes are that bad, the people responsible for them will be fired, or in some way punished - and if they aren’t, then the people we did vote for will be hearing about it.

Of course, I’m someone who thinks they whole system of “punitive damages” is screwed anyway, in that it encourages frivolous lawsuits, and should be completely revamped. For starters, punitive damages in a lawsuit should not go to the individual filing the suit. But that’s a whole 'nother thread. :slight_smile:

Jeff

31

And one point I forgot to make: I’m not saying that people who are wrongly incarcerated shouldn’t be compensated. I’m saying they shouldn’t be awarded punitive damages. They should be compensated for all real damages incurred (however you want to go about determining that).

Jeff

32

I’m not sure I am in favor of punitive damages ever, unless as a fine paid to the government (as opposed to the victim/lawyer - I see that ElJeffe has raised this issue already). But I think a guy should get some pretty serious actual damages for rotting in jail for a crime he did not commit. Something like $250K for every year he sat sounds like a nice ballpark figure to me (though not in accordance with the scale I’ve seen in recent highly publicized cases, e.g. Rodney King et al, which I would consider excessively high).

The important distinction from my perspective is that I would not grant compensation for guys whose verdict was merely overturned - I would want actual proof of innocence.

For that matter, I would like to see a trial verdict of “innocent” in addition to “not guilty”. In the former case, the government should pay all legal fees, and possibly some additional compensation as well.

33

Who is talking about punitive damages? Not me. All I am saying is that if a guy spent some years in prison and he was innocent, then I think we owe him some compensation. I am not trying to punish anyone if it was an honest mistake by the working of the judicial system. I just think the guy should be compensated for the mistake.

34

Of course wrongfully imprisoned people should get compensation. “The system” robbed someone of his/her freedom – in some cases for decades. I just don’t think an “Oops, We’re sorry.” is sufficient.

Sometimes a mistaken conviction is the result of a genuine mistake – a victim misidentifying the man who raped her, for instance. It wasn’t the jurors’ fault and it was the victim’s fault and it wasn’t the d.a.'s fault that the wrong man went to jail. It was simply a mistake. But a mistake nonetheless. So we should do the best to rectify the mistake. First by publicly admitting the mistake and apologizing to the person who paid dearly for the mistake. Secondly by expunging his conviction. Thirdly by giving him a substantial sum of money.

In the instances where it is found that the DA’s office deliberately suppressed evidence that would have been helpful to the defense, the wrongly convicted person should get all of the remedies above, plus a substantial punitive damage. And anyone who knowingly suppressed evidence should lose his/her job.

Justice is supposed to be fair.

35

Well, I mostly agree. I agree that only in cases of misconduct one should be able to collect damages.

However, I also think that in the case of simple error or “20-20 hindsight” the wrongfully convicted should get a reasonable amount of “start your life over” stuff, assuming the dude has no significant outside assets waiting for him. Otherwise, our “innocent criminal” may be forced into a life of crime just to survive. Let’s give him a voucher for a couple of months rent, food stamps, some clothes, and a cheap used confiscated car, etc. Oh, and some free vocational training, if nessesary. Cost is minimum. We’re talking a couple thousand, maybe.

36

DrDeth, I modified my position to propose that in the ‘no-misconduct’ situation, a no-fault trust fund be set up in such a way that payments out of the trust fund do not affect the budget of the DA’s office (so that it doesn’t end up deterring DAs).

ElJeffe, in my proposal, the actual prosecutor who engaged in the misconduct would be personally liable, and may not be indemnified by the DA’s office - IOW, he/she’s gotta pay.
That being said, it doesn’t mean that the DA’s office should necessarily be immune from punitive damages - if it is demonstrated that the prosecutor’s supervisors were aware of the misconduct or willfully turned a blind eye, etc. The prosecutor is the DA’s office’s agent, and is responsible for the prosecutor’s conduct.

Unless the word does not translate directly from Spanish to English, I can’t see how you are quite sure.

First of all, in English (well, English legalese) “judicial error” means an error of law by the judge, nothing else. There can easily be erroneous convictions in cases where the judge makes no error.

Second, the Spanish words for “judicial error,” whatever they are, seems likely be a term of art - as ithe phrase is in English - with specific legal meaning that you and I don’t know.

Third, while this is not dispositive (I’m not “quite sure” :D), the mere fact that the section is not a short, simple, “If a person is convicted and later determined to be innocent, they get compensation,” is an indication that it was not the intent of the Spanish Constitution to grant compensation in every case. Laws should be read to give meaning to all the terms in it, and the assumption is that, if additional words are included in a law, they are there for a reason. My reading of the section you provided is that the terms “judicial error” and “abnormal operation” are intended to be limitations on the right to compensation - else there would be no point for them being there.

Sua

37

No, they shouldn’t just leave them on there own IMHO. Regardless of whether it was an accident or not, the guy’s life and youth are gone. I think there should be some kind of compensation. His needs should be met.

38

Sua, since I am not a lawyer and I am not sure of the strict legal meaning, I did some research and it seems I am right. But trying to understand legal documents if you are not in the legal profession can be a headache in any language.

The Spanish law says “cuando en virtud de recurso de revisión se dicte sentencia absolutoria, los interesados en ella o sus herederos tendrán derecho a las indemnizaciones civiles a que hubiere lugar, según el derecho común, las cuales serán satisfechas por el Estado”. Again, I am not a lawyer and I do not know the specific legal meaning but in common language it says that when a case is reviewed and the judgment exonerates, the interested parties and/or their heirs have the right to recover indemnity according to common law, which shall be paid by the state.

I found a paper which deals with a jugdment. The plaintiff was incarcerated for three years pending trial and then was found not guilty. Plaintiff then sues the State for time he was in jail and the court rules against him because he was not serving time but held in custody pending trial. The ruling explicitly says that if he had been serving time by judicial sentence and then discovered to be innocent, that would be considered “abnormal operation of the Administration of Justice” and plaintiff would be entitled to recover but being held pending trial is not a punishment and he is not entitled to recover. Because he was only in preventive custody pending trial, the bar is higher and he can only recover if he can prove there was abuse in bringing him to trial (lack of any probable cause etc) which he did not do.

Source: http://www.uv.es/~ripj/2enri.htm

The page is full of wherefors and heretofors and trying to understand it is not easy. Another thing I find interesting: Time held awaiting trial is always discounted from the sentence imposed even if the individual was held for another accusation. Say I am accused of crime A and held for four months awating trial and then declared not guilty and free to go. Then I am arrested again and accused of B and held another four months and then found guilty and sentenced to 36 months in jail. From that 36 they have to discount the full 8 months I have been held already even though the first four were on account of something else. I find that interesting.

39

sounds interesting indeed, sailor, kinda like ‘felony insurance’, “serve 30 days now before you commit the crime and have your sentence reduced” hell, that would take care of what to do when you’re between gigs :wink:

40

Some further comments:
That sentence classifies imprisonment of a person later found innocent “abnormal operation of the Administration of Justice” so, while I was right that the Spanish constitution does require compensation, Sua was probably right in his restricted interpretation of the words “judicial error”.

That page mentions relevant laws of the EU are applicable but does not go into details. It would be interesting to see EU law on this issue. I have a feeling it probably also provides for compensation for having been imprisoned and later found innocent. (I was going to ask how do you compensate those sentenced to Capital punishment but there is no such punishment in Europe.)
wring, on futher rereading the page I see the Spanih legislators had the same idea and time served counts only for any charges for acts committed before the time was served. It explicitly mentions that otherwise someone who had accummulated some time would have an incentive to break the law. Like the guy in the case in question. He was three years awaiting trial. If he is now convicted of something which happened before those three years, then the three years count as time served but if he commits another crime now, then they don’t. The reason given is what you said: we don’t want the guy to have the incentive to commit a crime.

Which makes me think somewhat facetiously. If the guy did the time, why should he be allowed to commit the crime? I mean, he paid the price upfront.