I chose other. Their are some situations that warrant compensation but not as a general rule. I have seen abuse by law enforcement and the DAs office that while "legal" was unethical.
An example of this is someone I know. Law enforcement charged him 3 different times with charges and then let the time limitation expire (1 year). If he had been unable to bond out he would have spent 3 years in jail while never having been convicted of a crime. I wont get into all the details but I fully believe that it was intentional because of the long feud this person had had on a personal level with local law enforcement. I believe they knew full good and well they had nowhere nearly enough evidence to make a conviction but used it as a means of punishment or the removal of this person.
Also their have been some rare occasions where the judicial system has clearly and sometimes intentionally convicted innocent persons. While this normally carries prison time, the time isnt nearly enough. Fairly recently (cant remember the case off hand, will look for it) a judge intentionally imprisoned a innocent person which spent over 20 years in prison. In return the judge was sentenced to like 6 years. I believe at a min. they should server a equal amount of time.
- Police officers should not be held personally responsible for discharging their duties within the confines of those duties and responsibilities.
Right now, police officers can be sued. But to say they should pay out of their pockets if a defendant is acquited is silly.
And, I hate to break the news to you but in lawsuits against the police, citizens who are on the jury are far more likely to side with police than they are with criminals.
You are wrong. Being found not guilty doesn't even mean you won't lose a civil lawsuit for the same conduct. Just because the state couldn't meet the standard of ""proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not necessarily mean one is innocent.
A jury's choice is Guilty or Not Guilty. It isn't Guilty or Innocent.
I chose other. Their are some situations that warrant compensation but not as a general rule. I have seen abuse by law enforcement and the DAs office that while "legal" was unethical.
An example of this is someone I know. Law enforcement charged him 3 different times with charges and then let the time limitation expire (1 year). If he had been unable to bond out he would have spent 3 years in jail while never having been convicted of a crime. I wont get into all the details but I fully believe that it was intentional because of the long feud this person had had on a personal level with local law enforcement. I believe they knew full good and well they had nowhere nearly enough evidence to make a conviction but used it as a means of punishment or the removal of this person.
Also their have been some rare occasions where the judicial system has clearly and sometimes intentionally convicted innocent persons. While this normally carries prison time, the time isnt nearly enough. Fairly recently (cant remember the case off hand, will look for it) a judge intentionally imprisoned a innocent person which spent over 20 years in prison. In return the judge was sentenced to like 6 years. I believe at a min. they should server a equal amount of time.
The theory: Evidence is gathered, a warrant is issued upon probable cause; you are arrested, held in jail for a short while until you are tried by a jury of your peers and found guilty or not guilty.
The reality: Arrests are more commonly made because the subject talks and gives away something incriminating, or has incriminating evidence on his person or in his home, or is ratted out by someone. Not a lot of Columbo or Murder, She Wrote detective work involved (nor CSI in most cases). Many get out on bond. Most use a public "defender" and plead guilty in return for a reduced sentence... that's assuming some pre-trial intervention doesn't occur resulting in probation or whatever. If you insist on a jury trial, it will probably take at least 1 year, perhaps 2 or 3, to go to court. If you can't get out on bond, oh well you sit in jail. ("Speedy" trial? Define speedy...)
If you insist on a jury trial, the solicitor will be most reluctant to pursue one (they are expensive and very time consuming, and we don't have nearly enough courts to try all cases if everyone insisted on a jury trial), unless he is very nearly certain he can get a conviction. Now, once a while he will misjudge it and someone will walk, but most jury trials do end in conviction, and in punishment for making them go to all that bother they will probably give you a stiff sentence, like the maximum.
The reality is that not many REALLY INNOCENT people reach the point of a jury trial. Some, yes... but the percentage is certainly small.
If you actually go through all that and are found not guilty, I can see making the State reimburse you for lost time/earnings while in jail, legal fees and so forth. After all, a "speedy trial" these days is a YEAR OR TWO. Can you imagine knowing that you're innocent and sitting in jail for two years because you were denied bond? Pretty horrible idea. Imagine you have small children while all this is going on; imagine your mortgage is foreclosed while you're not earning.
As for making cops pay for any kind of erroneous arrest out of their pockets.... basically you'd end up with cops refusing to arrest anybody without a signed confession and a bloody murder weapon AND a witness. Most cops don't make a lot of money and one such erroneous arrest would pretty much wipe them out financially. If you want anarchy and chaos by all means go ahead....
Remarkably enough I have come very close to being wrongfully arrested on several occasions.
Twice involved mistaken identity. In one case the witness recanted when he saw me close up. In the other case the cops let me go when they could not establish that I was the person for whom a felony warrant existed (guy with the same name except for middle).
The other case was a bit more complex.... it involved a State Trooper who didn't know the law as well as he thought he did. I was in the right.... but if I'd pushed the matter on the side of the road I might have gone to jail. Instead I let him have his way and called the State AG when I got home and got the matter handled.
That's three times I nearly suffered a wrongful arrest... despite being an ex-cop.... so it's a good bet that it happens more often than some might like to think.
Now the truth of the matter? I'm pretty darn sure (from prior experience) that 96-98% of the people who are arrested and charged (and either tried or cop a plea) are far from innocent. But I think whenever we DO come up with one that is REALLY AND ACTUALLY INNOCENT (demonstrably so), that he ought to be compensated fully for any losses pertaining to his incarceration and trial. I'm convinced that wouldn't happen very often.
Only in the eyes of a progressive attorney. Employers own their businesses and can pretty much drop you for whatever reason they feel necessary, with the exception of disability and pregnancy.
Most of the time, the evidence is "overwhelming" ( at least in the opinion of the DA), but sometimes it turns out not to be (OJ Simpson case), this is not completely known until the trail concludes...Well, let me see, if there's not enough evidence to convict you of a crime, does that mean you should have been tried in the first place? Are we all suspects of a crime until proven not guilty? Theoretically - yes, of course, with a few nanoseconds of reasoning, 99.9% are eliminated.
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?