Compensation for exonerated prisoners

[Anders]

There has been a lot of talk lately about the criminal justice system and DNA testing exonerating innocent prisoners. But what happens to released prisoners after they are found innocent? How can they pick their lives up again? I found an interesting website hosted by the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) that talks about what happens to innocent victims of the criminal justice system. Burden of Innocence (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/burden/etc/faqsreal.html)

For those who don't want to read everything, I'll just hit the highlights-

*Though DNA testing has been the leading reason why innocent people are being released, DNA testing is expensive, and even though they may petition the courts to order the testing, restrictions cause many convicts to have to pay for the testing themselves.

*Over 90% of exonerated often spend enough time in prison that they lose all of their assets.

*Of those able to find work 43% of them are not able to find work that pays as much as they made before being wrongfully convicted.

*37% of exonerated prisoners received compensation from the government, but were only eligible to get up to $5000- regardless of how long they were in prison. (28 U.S.C. section 2513)

*In only 16 states, exonerated prisoners may receive compensation from the state, though many of these states place caps (typically around $25,000) on the amount they can get.

** It is possible, however unlikely that some states may have added laws granting compensation since this page was last updated.

I don't know about you, but I think that the government owes people convicted of crimes they didn't commit more than a pat on the back, a couple bucks and a hearty "good luck!"

[ruaidhri]

Yes, I agree. At the very least, the government should make them whole with what they would have reasonably earned had they not been wrongfully convicted. I also believe the government should make a serious effort to help them find meaningful employment. But, I doubt either will happen.

I believe many taxpayers would object to giving money to even a wrongfully convicted ex-prisoner. I also believe many of these freed individuals lived lives on the wrong side of the law only to be convicted for a crime they didn’t actually commit. While that doesn’t change the fact that they were wronged, I expect they wouldn’t elicit much sympathy from taxpayers asked to make reparations.

Then, there’s the problem of freed prisoners committing new crimes. In Wisconsin, Steve Avery was recently arrested and charged with murdering Teresa Halbach, a 25-year- old freelance photographer, and burning her body. Avery wad released in 2003 after spending 18 years in a Wisconsin prison for a rape he didn't commit. His case drew a lot of publicity but the fact remained the Avery was not an exemplary individual. While that doesn’t justify his being imprisoned for a crime he didn’t commit, it also is not a recommendation for compensation.

[Jon885]

I think the innocent prisoners deserve more than a couple of bucks. What they deserve is at least $100,000 but I guess that wouldn't be realistic. Funny because I was just watching an episode of "Unsolved Mysteries" about a retarded guy that was in prison for a crime he didn't do. He was exonerated though.

[GTARob]

I would'nt be against reparations payed to those individuals who were incarcerated because of wrongfull acts on the part of the state. Anything that violated his right to due process should be more than made up for.

However those individuals who were convicted, for lack of a better term, on good faith. Those that had the evidence pointing to them and found guilty of thier crimes by a jury of thier peers, no, I dont support reparations beyond repaying them the salaries they lost because of thier incarcerations. I don't know how programs within the prison system works, but can inmates not get a highschool diploma and college education in prison? Do they have to pay for the classes or is the state paying for that. If a new technology comes along that can prove your innocence, awesome, but I don't think you can or need to hold the state responsible for not utilizing technology that noone knows about. However if you were convicted of a crime today without DNA evidence.....then yes, I would be all about reparations then.

[hapacheese]

But it goes beyond simply lost wages. And even if they were convicted "in good faith," it is still an error on the part of the state.

You have to take into considerations lost opportunities (what if the person would have been promoted had he not been incarcerated?), lost time with family and friends, and simply loss of freedom. And sure, a convict can apply for various degrees and whatnot, but what if he or she already had a high school degree? A college degree? What if they had a skill-based job and being incarcerated for 10 years caused them to fall behind the technology curve or simply lose their ability to perform the job as well as they did?

[GTARob]

It wasnt an error on the part of the state. The state doesnt determine whether or not people go to jail. A jury does. The state just presents the jury with the evidence it has. Its up to the people to decide guilt or innocence. Should prisoners who were wrongfully convicted before humans figured out we all have unique fingerprints have gotten reparations? I don't think that they should. They were convicted based on the evidence and technology that was available at the time. The technology we have helps us to better analyze the evidence, but barring gross negligence on the part of the state when presenting the evidence I don't think that the state should be held responsible for what amounts to a bad situation. Crassly put, shit happens, sometimes it isn't any one persons fault. I am not saying that we shouldnt try to help those individuals wrongfully, correction, inaccuratly accused and convicted of crimes, but I don't think they are by default entitled to punitive compensation from the state when the state did the best it could with what they had when they had it.

[Pierrot le Fou]

GTARob hit the nail on the head:
It wasnt an error on the part of the state. The state doesnt determine whether or not people go to jail. A jury does.

To toss in another Devil's Advocate point, what's to prevent me from allowing myself to be found guilty, then springing some 'evidence I forgot about' at my appeal and demanding that I be compensated for what, essentially, was fraud? Or would I then be arrested for fraud as the government tried to prove that I manufactured my own conviction so it could be overturned and I be due compensation? And that would cost how much time and money?

[FireWolf238]

i can't say whether inocent covicts should be conpencated b/c every case is uniqe. as for the jury system the main problem in it is that it's human and thinks with emotions. the problem with this is that you can show a horifying picture of a victim to the jury and half of them wil sentance the defendent eight there, and that's without anyother details that might come up, non of which link anyone to the scene.

[karob]

But it goes beyond simply lost wages. And even if they were convicted "in good faith," it is still an error on the part of the state.

You have to take into considerations lost opportunities (what if the person would have been promoted had he not been incarcerated?), lost time with family and friends, and simply loss of freedom. And sure, a convict can apply for various degrees and whatnot, but what if he or she already had a high school degree? A college degree? What if they had a skill-based job and being incarcerated for 10 years caused them to fall behind the technology curve or simply lose their ability to perform the job as well as they did?

Well I would take the job he/she had and just multiply those wages by the years lost. That would be plenty of money to get back on their feet. Wait... who is going to pay for all of this? I can see it now... the 2006 exonerated prisoner tax.

[Anders]

If it isn't the state's fault for holding an innocent person against his/her will, then should the state charge the released person for rent, food and utilities?

[Anders]

I just thought of something that might shed more light on this issue. First, the act of committing murder is a crime against the state. The state would prosecute you. Second, the state also selects the jury for the trial. While both sides are able to weed out some jurors they don't want, the state picks the pool to choose from. During the trial, the jury trys to decide whether the state law was broken by the defendant or not.

For those of you who have read the play "Twelve Angry Men" or have seen the movie (new or old) of the same title, you can see just how easy it is to convict someone for a crime they didn't commit. After experiencing that story, it's hard to say something like that could never happen.

[GTARob]

Well, off the cuff I cant really respond to the movie reference as I have never seen the movie. I will rent it on the way home from work tonight.

No, I dont think the state should charge an exonerated person for rent, food, and utilities. While the person didn't commit any offense it wasn't exactly thier choice to be there. I wouldnt run a red light at an intersection, cause an accident and then demand that the person I hit pay for the damages even if I ran the redlight because of a valid excuse, if there is one for that.

Yes, the state picks the jury pool, but they do it at random based on registered voters. Its either that or they select them from those with drivers licenses. Either way, its not like they are hand picking the each member of the jury pool based on a persons political views. Vior Dior(sp?) then allows both sides to weed out any members of the jury pool based on extreme views or the inability to render an impartial decision.

I've been thinking about this a little more, I think that those that were incarcerated by the state in good faith, based on the best evidence and technology available to them at the time, should be at least granted back pay based on minimum wages adjusted for time spent in the prisons. They do need something to try and get back on track with thier lives. I do not however believe that they should be granted, extra money just for the situation. Not unless the state engaged in things like, jury tampering, evidence tampering or the like.