- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,715
- Reaction score
- 751
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
In general, would you agree with a new law that requires individual police officers to pay, out of their own pockets, all costs that accrue from a false or wrongfully charged crime?
After all, if the individual suspect is eventually cleared of the charges, it doesn't mean they're not affected by being charged with a false crime. They have to pay the lawyer fees and they may even lose their jobs because of such charges. And without such a law, they're forced to eat all costs despite the fact that the charges have been dropped or dismissed.
I know I was pissed when the cops pulled me over and charged me with a false crime. I was on my way to work and I could have lost my job. Thank God I didn't, but I did lose a day's worth of pay and that isn't cheap. My lawyer's fees are also not cheap and if since I'm completely innocent, why is it my obligation to just eat the costs? If not the police officers, perhaps the courts should retrospectively pay all my costs that I've accrued thanks to their ridiculous laws and incompetent enforcers.
If we held them liable for their own wrongdoings, perhaps it would provide a crucial incentive for them to prevent any future wrongdoing.
Hell no. Police being held liable for other people lying (witnesses) is bullcrap.
Sorry, but this is one of the stupider ideas I have heard in a very long time. It would totally hamstring the police, who would be afraid to act fearing that some one might get off on a technicality and they end up screwed.
I can understand that position. How about forcing the court to pick up the tab? If the guilty parties are forced to pay the court's fees, why shouldn't the courts be forced to pay the fees related to charges levied against those proven not guilty?
The court will pick up the tab. It's called a public defender.
"Other people lying"? Who in the hell ever said that? Are all people who are absolved of their charges liars and secret criminals?
And if the absolved suspect loses his job...then what? Punitive damages?
I never once said that the people absolved of thier charges are liars. In fact I stated explicity "witnesses". I even put it in parenthesesis.
Most people that are charged with a crime and spend time in jail due to wrongful convictions often get a certain amount of money based on how long they were incarcerated. Also I would imagine that they could sue for things like wrongful imprisonment, emotional distress, loss of income etc etc.
Edit note: finished typeing a word that my fingers sped too fast over.
If I not mistaken the Police do not lay criminal charges outside of minor offences like speeding. Major offences require judges and DA's to actually charge people7
The Police of course can arrest people
In general, would you agree with a new law that requires individual police officers to pay, out of their own pockets, all costs that accrue from a false or wrongfully charged crime?
After all, if the individual suspect is eventually cleared of the charges, it doesn't mean they're not affected by being charged with a false crime. They have to pay the lawyer fees and they may even lose their jobs because of such charges. And without such a law, they're forced to eat all costs despite the fact that the charges have been dropped or dismissed.
I know I was pissed when the cops pulled me over and charged me with a false crime. I was on my way to work and I could have lost my job. Thank God I didn't, but I did lose a day's worth of pay and that isn't cheap. My lawyer's fees are also not cheap and if since I'm completely innocent, why is it my obligation to just eat the costs? If not the police officers, perhaps the courts should retrospectively pay all my costs that I've accrued thanks to their ridiculous laws and incompetent enforcers.
If we held them liable for their own wrongdoings, perhaps it would provide a crucial incentive for them to prevent any future wrongdoing.
I can understand that position. How about forcing the court to pick up the tab? If the guilty parties are forced to pay the court's fees, why shouldn't the courts be forced to pay the fees related to charges levied against those proven not guilty?
The court will pick up the tab. It's called a public defender.
In general, would you agree with a new law that requires individual police officers to pay, out of their own pockets, all costs that accrue from a false or wrongfully charged crime?
After all, if the individual suspect is eventually cleared of the charges, it doesn't mean they're not affected by being charged with a false crime. They have to pay the lawyer fees and they may even lose their jobs because of such charges. And without such a law, they're forced to eat all costs despite the fact that the charges have been dropped or dismissed.
I know I was pissed when the cops pulled me over and charged me with a false crime. I was on my way to work and I could have lost my job. Thank God I didn't, but I did lose a day's worth of pay and that isn't cheap. My lawyer's fees are also not cheap and if since I'm completely innocent, why is it my obligation to just eat the costs? If not the police officers, perhaps the courts should retrospectively pay all my costs that I've accrued thanks to their ridiculous laws and incompetent enforcers.
If we held them liable for their own wrongdoings, perhaps it would provide a crucial incentive for them to prevent any future wrongdoing.
You can file a complaint to recover your expenses. You're days wages, if they were actually lost, should be recoverable. As for attorney's fees, that's up to the attorneys.
So, are all absolved suspects true criminals who got away because of a lying witness?
Being found "Not Guilty" is not necessarily the same as being "innocent" and therefore "Wrongfully" charged.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?