Texas handsomly pays those that were innocent

[LnGrrrR]

What about the flip side of that coin? The people who we know committed a crime, yet get to remain free because someone on the law enforcment / prosecution side botched the case. If we're going to demand perfection from our justice system for one group, shouldn't we do so for the other?

It's called double jeopardy, and it's specifically prohibited by the Fifth Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_A...s_Cons ution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

There's a good reason why cops wait to get as much evidence as they can before arresting someone.

[LnGrrrR]

I think $80,000 a year is kinda high. Probably very few of these guys would've EVER earned anywhere near that salary on the outside.

I'm sure some of the money is res ution for having to spend that time in jail. It's more than just the amount they would've made; you also would have to take into account their lack of freedom.

[coyotes_geek]

It's called double jeopardy, and it's specifically prohibited by the Fifth Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_A...s_Cons ution



There's a good reason why cops wait to get as much evidence as they can before arresting someone.

Right. If double jeopardy is there to protect the guy who commits a crime from the state saying "we made a mistake, but it was in good faith so we're going to try you again", shouldn't we give the wrongly convicted the compensation for taking away years of their lives irregardless of whether or not they were convicted in good faith?

[LnGrrrR]

Right. If double jeopardy is there to protect the guy who commits a crime from the state saying "we made a mistake, but it was in good faith so we're going to try you again", shouldn't we give the wrongly convicted the compensation for taking away years of their lives irregardless of whether or not they were convicted in good faith?

I'm not sure if the two are necessarily related, but yes, I can see a good justification for it. As noted above, I can get on-board with compensation.

[FromWayDowntown]

Unless those 10 men kill 10 more people... Then that may skew the equation.

What would you suggest? Should we diminish the State's burden in criminal prosecutions -- making it prove the charge by a less onerous standard, like by a preponderance of the evidence?

If it is a fundamental cons utional right to be protected against unwarranted deprivations of liberty (the Declaration of Independence would certainly suggest that such is a fundamental tenet of the American experiment), that interest is much better protected by requiring high prosecutorial burdens and accepting that the reliance upon those burdens might occasionally result in acquittals of the guilty.

[DMX7]

I think $80,000 a year is kinda high. Probably very few of these guys would've EVER earned anywhere near that salary on the outside.

Yeah, they may not earn that at a normal job but a normal job isn't as bas as prison.

[FromWayDowntown]

Yeah, they may not earn that at a normal job but a normal job isn't as bas as prison.

The $80,000 isn't meant to compensate for lost wages. It's most assuredly meant to compensate for the almost-immeasurable loss of the opportunity to live a life outside of prison.

[SpurNation]

How much would you demand if wrongly convicted, imprisoned and forced to be away from family, life and opportunity?

I think $80 grand a year is not only fair but less than what might be available to garnish if one could actually sue for false imprisonment.