The Wrongly Convicted: Let's Pay These People Some Money

[sailor]

@Malthus

In short, tghe fault lay not on the court or the trier of fact (dunno whether it was judge alone or jury), but with the guy who, for strange reasons of his own, set out to deliberately screw up the system.

If your car causes you to be crippled for the rest of your life would you accept a verdict saying the manufacturer is not responsible for the acts of an employee who acted maliciously and caused the accident?

[smiling_bandit]

While I don’t know exactly how Canadian law handles, Common Law emcompasses the Respondeat Superior principle, and depending on what department actually employed him, that part of the government could well be liable for a lot of damages. If they simply ignored oversight and didn’t bother… that doesn’t help their case.

However, the government can often ignore civil accusations; I don’t know how that works in this case in Canada.

[Malthus]

@clairobscur

I think that what both **left hand of dorkness ** and I meant is that it’s irrelevant if it’s the government/court fault or not. The idea is that we want a justice system to protect us against criminals, knowing perfectly that occasionally it will wreck havoc in some innocent people’s life. And so that we should be ready to properly indemnify those accidental victims of the system that generally keep us all safer.

If you disagree, you want the cost of this protection to fall only on the unlucky souls who draw the wrong number at this anti-lottery and were convicted and jailed despite being innocent. I believe that it’s much fairer to share the burden, and give them a generous indemnity for their hardships, even when it was really nobody’s fault, but just an unintended but unavoidable consequence of a system we all want and all benefit from.
Plus, you should keep in my mind that it’s probably often actually to some extent “somebody’s fault”. Maybe the prosecutor was a little too much trigger happy (though not to an unacceptable level), the police officers too lazy, the jurors too willing to have somebody convicted for the odious crime, the non-wealthy convict not adequately represented by his lawyer, or maybe there were more egregious and unacceptable mistakes made, that would still be difficult to prove in a court of law.
Giving some cents more in taxes to ease the life of the innocent guy who spent 20 years being the bars labelled as a child murderer doesn’t seem an excessive burden to me in the grand scheme of things, and certainly seems more just.
It vaguely reminds me of this short story where someone has to suffer horribly for the whole village to be happy. In this case it wouldn’t be difficult to somewhat alleviate the suffering by being willing to send some money the way of the wrongfully sentenced man, without the difficult and in probably in many cases pointless process of investigating whether or not it was someone’s fault, and whose fault exactly.

You haven’t read my earlier post in this thread. I already said that it may make perfect sense on policy grounds alone to pay compensation to the wrongly accused and convicted, regardless of fault.

I am merely disagreeing with the following premise:

It seems to me that if we’re willing to imprison innocent people on occasion, in order to be sure to catch the guilty in a sufficiently wide net, we’re basically demanding that random innocent people be sacrificed for the greater good.

… by pointing out that this isn’t a case of a ‘sufficiently wide net’.

[Malthus]

@sailor

If your car causes you to be crippled for the rest of your life would you accept a verdict saying the manufacturer is not responsible for the acts of an employee who acted maliciously and caused the accident?

If the employee was acting with malice in sabotaging my car so that I’d be injured or killed, my injuries were not an “accident”, but a deliberate murderous attempt.

Why should a company have to compensate victims when it turns out one of its employees happens to be a psycho murderer? How far would you extend that principle?

For example, what if you ran a small grocery, and your (sole) employee deliberately put rat poision in the cornflakes you sell? Are you responsible for that, as well?

Now, in point of fact, it is a difficult legal issue when employees act with deliberate malice to what extent employers should act as their victim’s insurers. Obviously, the tendency is to want to stick it to the employer, because they are more likely to have deep pockets, but it isn’t by any means obvious that this is always justified. In law, employers aren’t responsible for everything their employees do, only for when the employees are doing their actual jobs - and deliberate malice isn’t part of their job description.

Here’s a link that explains this:

The doctrine of resppndeat superior is not simply to provide access to deep pockets for tort victims, but rather to shift burdens of loss equitably–where an employer may ultimately benefit from the injury-producing activity when such losses may practically occur from the conduct of the enterprise, it is more equitable to find responsibility in the employer. However, this doctrine is not without its limits.

The Kephart court explained the employee’s purpose and intent in acting are important considerations when determining whether those actions were within the scope of employment. The reason provided by the Court was “[a]n employer will not be held liable for an employee’s assault or other intentional tortAn intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor. The level of intent required to render a party liable for an intentional tort has been described as “substantial certainty” that the result
… Click the link for more information. that did not have a causal nexus to the employee’s work.” (Kephart, 136 Cal.App.4th at 290).

In Kephart, an employee of Defendant Company was driving on the highway near San Francisco San Francisco (săn frănsĭs`kō), city (1990 pop. 723,959), coextensive with San Francisco co., W Calif., on the tip of a peninsula between the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay, which are connected by the strait known as the Golden when he engaged in an act of “road rage See Web rage. .” Ultimately forcing the Plaintiff’s car off the road where it rolled over causing damage and injury. Plaintiffs brought suit against the driver and the driver’s employer on the grounds the evidence indicated defendant driver (employee) was scheduled to travel on business that day–thus, he was driving within the course and scope of employment.

The Court held the evidence showed defendant’s “road rage” conduct was motivated entirely by the driver-employee’s personal malicemalice, in law, an intentional violation of the law of crimes or torts that injures another person. Malice need not involve a malignant spirit or the definite intent to do harm.
… Click the link for more information., and did not relate to the scope of his employment. As such, the Court found Defendant company was not liable for the actions of, and damages caused, by its employee.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Respondeat+Superior:+a+look+at+when+employers+may+be+held+liable+for…-a0154003934

[Malthus]

@smiling_bandit

While I don’t know exactly how Canadian law handles, Common Law emcompasses the Respondeat Superior principle, and depending on what department actually employed him, that part of the government could well be liable for a lot of damages. If they simply ignored oversight and didn’t bother… that doesn’t help their case.

However, the government can often ignore civil accusations; I don’t know how that works in this case in Canada.

The doctrine of vicarious liability is pretty similar in the US and Canada (for the US position, see my link above). “The employee acting with deliberate malice” makes this a difficult case in both jurisdictions.

[gonzomax]

There are cases in Detroit where people were found guilty of crimes and the crime labs were not doing the work. They testified against people and the evidence was screwed up. Stories of prosecutors not giving the defense information that might have exonerated them are not rare. Police going over the line to get people they think are bad people are not rare either. Often a capital crime case has a public defender with little interest and very limited resources. We have to make provisions for people the system cheated. What else can you give them but money?

[gonzomax]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-09-25-crime-lab_N.htm heres the story on the labs.

[Markxxx]

The government has a responsiblity to find a person that will tell the TRUTH, not say whatever the DA wants to hear.

Unfortunately that isn’t how the system (at least in the USA) works. This is why it’s so bad. For every expert witness you can get that says “YES,” you can find another expert witness that says “NO.”

Since juries aren’t allowed to question the qualifications of said experts, who often talk over the average jurors head, to look impressive, and jurors who simply don’t care enough to look over the facts.

In the USA, we are supposed to have a system that takes 12 unbiased people and gives them a case to decide.

What we have is 12 people who have already made up their minds and MAY be willing to change their mind if the prosecutor or defense can rebutt all 12 of their individual biases.

[YogSothoth]

I think the government should always pay people back if it was discovered that they were wrongly convicted.

[wsbenge]

The government employees … police, prosecutors, etc. , are too focussed on conviction for promotions and accolades. Individuals are lost in the process. There needs to be a way to STEP on these people.

Too often, they just say “I was doing my job.” They get off scott free, and they don’t really worry about getting caught. Nothing will happen to them.