Is there a lawyer among the EG hive mind that can explain this to me? I don't get how a person can be found to have been wrongfully convicted, but fail in his bid to receive compensation for wrongful imprisonment?|
The areticle suggests that the sticking point is that "jurors could still reasonably have convicted him despite new evidence that led to his acquittal." As a matter of fact, this has shocked me so much, I am now reading through the summing up of the case. I am not smart enough to argue against the findings, but it screams bullshit to me.
Compensation for wrongful imprisonment a thing of the past?
I thought it was a little bit odd. Basically it seems to me that the argument is that there's an outside chance that the jury could have found him guilty even with the new evidence...
...but given how many times that's happened and clearly been the wrong decision anyway, I'm not sure what that means. Plus of course, if the new evidence isn't that strong, why even acquit him?
That's what I was thinking. Either a guy is innocent and was wrongly convicted and needs to be compensated for the years of wrongly being imprisoned.
But in what world can that happen and you not get compensated for that?
Syrette 43,521 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 11 years ago
I've still got this guy locked up in my basement, does this mean I can keep him there?
Fozzie_bear 15,530 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 12 years ago
Judges often issue bullshit decisions which aren't properly based on a thorough analysis of the relevant law. That's why they review video games forums to see if they've made any mistakes.
I'd take a read through the original decisions if you want a full explanation. Can probably find them at www.bailii.org
Reading that summary it looks like the test isn't whether they were wrongly convicted but whether the judge directed the jury correctly given the evidence which had been presented. The state compensates for a mistake by a judge.
Seems odd that you don't get compensation automatically on a conviction being quashed. If that's the law though then the judges in these cases couldn't change that even if they thought it was wrong.
One thing though - these aren't cases of wrongful imprisonment. The imprisonment was a result of a guilty verdict at a trial and so wasn't "wrongful" even if it later turned out to be wrong, if you see what I mean.
I never thought I'd say these words but... Where's mowgli when you need him?
Support the Mowgli Dirty Protest!
Bremenacht 18,286 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 8 years ago
Pretty sure the law was changed recently to ensure that less compensation was paid out.
Kostabi 4,931 posts
Seen 6 hours ago
Registered 9 years ago
So long as the trial was conducted properly and he was convicted on the evidence presented at trial then it can't be wrongful imprisonment.
If he wants compensating maybe he should write an OJ style book about how he would have done it.
Man... that's fucked. I think I might go on a murder spree for real if I had that done to me.
Edited by Psychotext at 20:25:20 25-01-2013
rudedudejude 2,178 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 9 years ago
So, the new world order marches on.
8 years of jail for an innocent man and he gets fuck all recompense. All because one judge made a ruling that changed the norm.
Even 500k for 8 years of a man's life seem a pittance.
Sounds like something you'd expect from one of those weird countries like Iran or something.