It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Liberal1984
1. My first question is why the police force?
Why does a small local police force have to pay 300 grand to a victim of the state?
How will this local police forces performance improve in light of being 300 grand short?
2. Surely if anyone in the police force did something grossly wrong then the only form of compensation should be a lawsuit mounted personally against those responsible?
3. Otherwise surely it should be handled by central government, that handles the cost of untraceable negligence’s? (not the local tax payer) (who may well have also been victims in other ways)
4. In fact surely central government should handle all compensation claims for wrongful imprisonment?
5. Is 300 thousand (despite being a record sum) really enough for loosing 11 years of your life. If I really wanted to I could make at least that much in 11 years (after tax) and still have time for family. £300,000 is little over 27 thousand pounds a year compensation per year of an 11 year sentence.
Lib you might find it hard to see why but there are many people here in the UK who very much prefer our system of local Police forces/services that are based on county or region.
Originally posted by Liberal1984
Sminkey; I'm not arguing against a local police force. I'm arguing that fines should be directed against ether individuals or central government; not local police forces.
I argue this because I do not see why the local polices quality of service should be punished-diluted at the expense of the local people.
Local staff cause mistakes and its right that they (as now) should not be able to turn to central government for bail outs.
Local services on the other hand are the victims of c**p staff even when litigation does not take place, so its entirely wrong these same local services should foot the litigation bills caused by such staff (at least without substantial-total government help).
I also agree with St Udio compensation should not be reduced by legal bills.
In fact my attitude has always been that the guilty should always cover the costs of the prosecution, just as the prosecution should always cover the costs of the innocent.
I believe the only excerption to this should be when a judge-jury specifically rules otherwise.
As for the size of the compensation I think everyone can see spencerjohnstone made an excellent point by noting how you can get £550,000 for stress related work, but only £300,000 for a miscarriage of justice costing you 11 years of freedom, of your life.
The law is an ass; but it’s far worse inside the divorce courts (this is a legal institution people should fear, like they fear crime).
Originally posted by donwhite
Three are good reasons to believe 15% of persons in American prisons have been wrongfully convicted.
George Bush approved and authorized 154 executions. One dead man every 2 weeks, on average. An American record.
(Do you think the stress of putting so many men to death could have affected him?)
One huge hurdle to cross for fair and prompt compensation is this: many people (here) don’t care about anyone who is in prison, innocent or not. There is no “constituency” for prisoners, innocent or otherwise. Prisoners do not vote. They have no money.
It seems to me the right thing to do is to set a daily rate, over here I’d suggest about $150 a day, but COLA’d, - cost of living adjusted - to avoid revisiting it every so often.
Prisoners should collect a check on their way out of the institution.
The national government should be liable for payment because it is, in the final analysis, a national problem.