No, I'm not specifically talking about you altair.
I think wrongful convictions are a terrible thing. I think people are due major restitution for being falsely imprisoned. But I think it should be handled on a case by case basis.
And for you jdub, the $80k is for each year served, not an annual payment. It is the “lump sum” payment. They also get an annuity which is paid out in installments over time which is in addition to the the lump sum.
My point which some don't be able to grasp is that there are people who will in the future game the system.
Get yourself convicted of a crime, spend 5 years in jail and then magically evidence surfaces that exonerates you and wa-la - $400,000. There are any number of ways people can create that situation, all on purpose.
So for some ex-con who can barely make minimum wage and knows the prison system inside out it makes perfect sense to fabricate a crime so that you get yourself convicted while hiding the hard evidence that clears you. Serve 5 years on the states dime and then the evidence is “discovered” that clears you. Bam, $400,000 and a longterm annuity...
It is the whole unintended consequences things that government is so good at.
Prosecutors need to be held accountable. They shouldn't get to destroy someones life and then simply say sorry.
“Prosecutors need to be held accountable. They shouldn’t get to destroy someones life and then simply say sorry.”
I withdraw my smart crack about your ‘dumbness’ - I viewed you comment in isolation from this context. I agree with your larger point about the perverse incentives enjoyed by prosecutors and some police - to advance their careers they railroad chumps, and this financial remedy just eases their consciences at the public expense.
Still, to engineer one’s own false conviction on the hopes of a certain monetary reward makes an interesting movie premise, but could hardly be a rational choice, given the violent chaos of the prison system.
Imprisoning reckless prosecutors would be a reasonable step to reduce the overall occurrence of wrongful convictions.
Here is what you are missing: the reason these people are exonerated is that 20-30 years ago scientists realized DNA identification was possible, but not yet available. So in cases where identity was an issue, and DNA evidence was available, the DNA was preserved for the future. So in cases where the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, or eyewitness ID, if the DNA doen't fit, they should've acquitted, and now the innocent guy gets out and gets some compensation for his ordeal.
The idea that some modern day criminal/CSI tech could manufacture a crime scene where, magically, five years later exonerating evindence will appear (remember someone on the outside has to believe he is innocent and take up the case, the prisons are full of guilty criminals who all claim to be innocent) is ludicrous.
So, yes, dumbest post ever. Congratulations.