Should the falsely convicted be compensated?

[miami_fan]

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...e/13409931.htm

Bill assigns freed man $2 million
TALLAHASSEE - (AP) -- A man who spent 22 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit will soon receive $2 million from the state, under a bill signed Wednesday by Gov. Jeb Bush.
Bush also signed two other bills passed during last week's special legislative session. They will create four new judgeships in southwest Florida and extend the deadline for some hurricane victims to apply for property tax discounts.
Wilton Dedge, 44, of Port St. John, watched from the galleries last week as the House and Senate passed the compensation bill and lawmakers apologized to him. He was freed in 2004 after DNA evidence proved he could not have been the rapist.
''Honestly, there's nothing anybody could do to make up the 22 years,'' Dedge said.
Dedge's bill applies only to his case but lawmakers promised to work on a lasting policy to compensate other wrongly convicted inmates.
While DNA evidence has helped convict some criminals it also is being used across the nation to free a growing number of inmates who have been convicted in error. In August, 67-year-old Luis Diaz was released in Miami after 26 years in prison on five rape charges after DNA from two of those cases excluded him as the attacker


I am not sure if there have been other situations where the state has paid a person who was falsely imprisoned.

[Young Drachma]

You hear about it all the time, when they get out of prison for false accusation that the courts rectify it by giving them money. I think that they'd be better to really integrate these people into society, rather than a big payday. Not that they don't deserve some compensation, because they can't get those years back, not to mention whatever else happened in prison.

[Raiders Army]

I'll tell you what I'd do with a million dollars: Two chicks at once.

[wade moore]

I don't feel they should get compensation unless the conviction was due to some gross negligence on the part of the court system. It is not the COURT that convicts these individuals, but a jury of their peers.

[WrongWay]

Isn't this like an out of court settlement so he will not sue the state or individuals that were involved in this case?


I wonder if he would be allowed to Sue all those that had stood up in court and testified against him after 22 years.

[mtolson]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I don't feel they should get compensation unless the conviction was due to some gross negligence on the part of the court system. It is not the COURT that convicts these individuals, but a jury of their peers.

So are you against sufferers from Katrina from being compensated ? The Government didn't cause the hurricane and flood so why should they have to pay !

I think compensation should be provided and based on your time wrongfully in jail. Someone that has been locked up for 20+ years, at an early age, may have lost the chance to obtain a college degree and ability to set a career foundation. This can drastically reduce thier ability to earn after release. I think it would be better if the compensation was spread out across years while the become adjusted to thier new environment to prevent them from blowing it all at one time.

In the case where the guy got 2 million after being in jail for 20+ years. Say he comes out of jail and can now only get a job at an average of $30,000 per year. If he works for the next 15 years, he would have earned $450,000 plus the 2 million. This averages to about $70,000 a year for the 35 years. I think thats fair considering what his potential may have been if not incarcerated.

[MIJB#19]

Sounds reasonable to me to compensate people after false convictions. They lost income and were not able to build up a retirement fund. 2 million for 22 years doesn't even include compensation for the mental damage caused.

And get rid of the jury system, it doesn't belong in a country with a constitution and undermines the authority of judges, who actually know the law.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

And get rid of the jury system, it doesn't belong in a country with a constitution and undermines the authority of judges, who actually know the law.

Crazy talk.

Most judges are elected. Elections aren't exactly guarantees that the winner knows the law better than the loser.

And as a nation we could give two shits about the authority of judges. Hell, we could give two shits about the authority of pretty much anyone. The judge's authority is what we say it is. It's not undermined by the jury system. Maybe if a nation without a jury system decided to add one you could say the judges have been undermined. But it's hard to say that when the jury system is as old as the role of judges.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by mtolson

So are you against sufferers from Katrina from being compensated ?

Yes.

[Crapshoot]

Yes - if your peers make a mistake that results in you wasting time from your life, you damn well ought to be compensated by them (on a larger scale - admittedly).

[Bonegavel]

there is some philosophy about the "making one whole" again or some such?

I am a big believer in limiting litigation, but this isn't some chick spilling hot coffee on her lap.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by mtolson

So are you against sufferers from Katrina from being compensated ?

Absolutely, in the way the word is used here.

But careful that you don't confuse the way "compensation" is being used in this context (as "reparation") with the more general way it can be used (basically as any payment).

I don't object to a limited amount of catastrophic aid, but it should be limited in both amount & time.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And, under the heading of "unintended consequences": are you prepared to compensate the victims of subsequent crimes committed by those who were wrongfully acquitted?

[wade moore]

I think Jon is touching on some of my thoughts...

In our judicial system that we as a society has accepted, we have to say that mistakes are going to happen. Since we have all accepted this social/legal contract, then we need to understand that we have to move on when they do happen unless they were due to blatant violations of the contract (i.e. planted evidence, lies, etc)...

Like Jon has stated, what do we compensate victims of those falsely acquitted? What do we compensate those who get struck by lightning? What do we compensate those whose car gets hit by a deer?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I think Jon is touching on some of my thoughts...

In our judicial system that we as a society has accepted, we have to say that mistakes are going to happen. Since we have all accepted this social/legal contract, then we need to understand that we have to move on when they do happen unless they were due to blatant violations of the contract (i.e. planted evidence, lies, etc)...

Like Jon has stated, what do we compensate victims of those falsely acquitted? What do we compensate those who get struck by lightning? What do we compensate those whose car gets hit by a deer?

The judicial system is at least partly responsable when someone is falsely convicted, and therefore should pay restitution to those they falsely imprison. They are not in responsable when the crime is committed (the person commiting the crime is) nor when struck by lightning or hitting deer.

A group of people paid by the government made the arguments and did the investigation that charged and falsley convicted the indiviual. There is no way you can ignore the system had some complicity in the injury.

[mtolson]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Yes.

So if you and your wife had lost everything you ever owned and worked for, your company had to shut down causing you to lose your job your saying you would not want your country to help YOU ?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by mtolson

So if you and your wife had lost everything you ever owned and worked for, your company had to shut down causing you to lose your job your saying you would not want your country to help YOU ?

Nope. I would hope I had insurance and savings. It is not our responsibility to care for those too irresponsbile to care for themselves as far as I'm concerned.

[mtolson]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I think Jon is touching on some of my thoughts...

In our judicial system that we as a society has accepted, we have to say that mistakes are going to happen. Since we have all accepted this social/legal contract, then we need to understand that we have to move on when they do happen unless they were due to blatant violations of the contract (i.e. planted evidence, lies, etc)...

Like Jon has stated, what do we compensate victims of those falsely acquitted? What do we compensate those who get struck by lightning? What do we compensate those whose car gets hit by a deer?

Wade, I think I understand where you are coming from, but your examples are a bit extreme when comparing them again someone who had charges wrongly filed against them by the state. You examples are not based on activities bought on by the government.

[mtolson]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Nope. I would hope I had insurance and savings. It is not our responsibility to care for those too irresponsbile to care for themselves as far as I'm concerned.

Not everyone is capable of having the luxury of savings or insurance. In low income areas, such as those hit by Katrina, some families lived paycheck-to-paycheck. In many cases, insurance companies are trying there hardest to not pay the victims. I would not classify this as irresponsible.

What is irresponsible is the attitude that we are to good to help others care for themselves in a time of need.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by mtolson

Not everyone is capable of having the luxury of savings or insurance. In low income areas, such as those hit by Katrina, some families lived paycheck-to-paycheck. In many cases, insurance companies are trying there hardest to not pay the victims. I would not classify this as irresponsible.

What is irresponsible is the attitude that we are to good to help others care for themselves in a time of need.

In my view, the fact that they lived paycheck to paycheck is not my problem.

My other argument you discussed I was using more as an example against Katrina, not the prisoners.

Again. The GOVERNMENT did not send them to prison, a jury of their peers did. There was overwhelming evidence against them to show they did it. Sorry, it sucks, but that's life.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by wade moore

In my view, the fact that they lived paycheck to paycheck is not my problem.

My other argument you discussed I was using more as an example against Katrina, not the prisoners.

Again. The GOVERNMENT did not send them to prison, a jury of their peers did. There was overwhelming evidence against them to show they did it. Sorry, it sucks, but that's life.

There is a funny thing about the wrongly convicted: they were poor and that is why they were wrongly convicted. Not having good legal representation is easily the number one reason people are wrongfully convicted. Being poor means you usually don't get that quality representation. To then say they shouldn't be compensated for having years off their life taken (in the name of keeping the rest of us safe) is kind of cruel to me.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And, under the heading of "unintended consequences": are you prepared to compensate the victims of subsequent crimes committed by those who were wrongfully acquitted?

That's a strawman Jon, and you know it - for one, you're making the leap that people who are wrongly convicted are likely to commit further crimes in the future. And as to the subject itself - no- easily. The false conviction of a man by the government is the fault of the government or the jury of his peers. Any crime committed by the man as a secondary incident is not a result of any failure on the government's part (since they had no grounds for keeping him in the first place) - and ergo, the victim is not compensated by the government (but is free to take their case to civil court).

I'm going to make a leap here that even you don't support a Minority Report like pre-cognition system, where we arrest people based on some belief that they may commit a crime something in the future.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Crazy talk.

Most judges are elected. Elections aren't exactly guarantees that the winner knows the law better than the loser.

And as a nation we could give two shits about the authority of judges. Hell, we could give two shits about the authority of pretty much anyone. The judge's authority is what we say it is. It's not undermined by the jury system. Maybe if a nation without a jury system decided to add one you could say the judges have been undermined. But it's hard to say that when the jury system is as old as the role of judges.

I stand corrected.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Again. The GOVERNMENT did not send them to prison, a jury of their peers did. There was overwhelming evidence against them to show they did it. Sorry, it sucks, but that's life.

Yes they did. It was the government that investigated, charged and presented the evidence that convicted them. That evidence was wrong, therefore it was the government that holds the largest part in the injury.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

That's a strawman Jon, and you know it

Not at all, I was just asking the question. It wasn't meant as a "you can't do "a" because of "b" thing (although I can see where it could be taken as such).
It was more of a "this just hit me so I posted it" thing, which is why is was dola'ed instead of included in my first post.

I'm going to make a leap here that even you don't support a Minority Report like pre-cognition system, where we arrest people based on some belief that they may commit a crime something in the future.

Careful where you leap Crapper, careful where you leap.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Careful where you leap Crapper, careful where you leap.

Eh ? I'm not talking about a case where we have strong evidence that a person is about to committ a crime - that is a crime in itself, a conspiracy (if I recall correctly). I'm talking about a system where we would have to know what people are thinking.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

I stand corrected.

Just to clarify the role of judges/juries in the American system:

Juries are used to determine the facts of a case. Judges decide the law.

So if you are accused of the crime of "Robbing a Place of Business," it may go something like this:

Let's say that someone broke into Jim's new house, which contains an office for Solecismic Software, and stole something from it. You are on trial for this crime. You present witnesses saying that you were with them at the time of the crime. The government presents witnesses saying that they saw you commit the crime.

The JURY determines the factual question: were you the individual who broke into the building. That is a fact, and it needs to be found by a jury.

Let's also say that, in addition to presenting witnesses saying that you were not there, you also argue that Jim's house is not "a Place of Business" because it is also a home. And let's say that the government says that a house with a home office is "a Place of Business" as that term is used in the statute.

The JUDGE will determine what the law means--what "a Place of Business" is as that term is used in the statute.

So the Judge and Jury actually should not step on each other's toes--they deal with different aspects of the trial. The Jury decides what actually happened. The judge decides the legal effect of those facts.

That is very very simplistic, but it is a decent thumbnail sketch of things, I think.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Yes they did. It was the government that investigated, charged and presented the evidence that convicted them. That evidence was wrong, therefore it was the government that holds the largest part in the injury.

Disagree here. They worked with the evidence they had. Again if there was malicious intent or negligence, fine. But often (especially with most of these being DNA overturns) this was what the evidence SAID.

Again, I feel there is a contract in this country where we have to accept these things.

Or, if we're going to compensate, it should be a STATIC value based on years. Random lawsuits where people get millions of dollars based on the judge in the case is just not the right way.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Eh ? I'm not talking about a case where we have strong evidence that a person is about to committ a crime - that is a crime in itself, a conspiracy (if I recall correctly). I'm talking about a system where we would have to know what people are thinking.

I think Jon already "knows" who is likely to commit a crime or should otherwise be locked up. I have little doubt if he was running the country, I would be summarily executed and/or given life (although I think death is the more likely option).

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Disagree here. They worked with the evidence they had. Again if there was malicious intent or negligence, fine. But often (especially with most of these being DNA overturns) this was what the evidence SAID.

They WORKED the evidence they had to get the desired result, a conviction. That is the way the system works. Whether you are guilty or not does not matter, it is if they can get a jury to believe you are guilty.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Disagree here. They worked with the evidence they had. Again if there was malicious intent or negligence, fine. But often (especially with most of these being DNA overturns) this was what the evidence SAID.

The direction this is headed is that non-DNA "evidence" isn't grounds for a conviction. Once you undermine the basis of "beyond a reasonable doubt" by agreeing how wrong that is, you can begin to erode the ability to remove any criminal from society at all.

And I'm not at all convinced that isn't exactly what such a move is ultimately meant to accomplish

Again, I feel there is a contract in this country where we have to accept these things.

Careful, you're on the verge of being unneccessarily amazed at what some people are willing to "accept".

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by mtolson

Wade, I think I understand where you are coming from, but your examples are a bit extreme when comparing them again someone who had charges wrongly filed against them by the state. You examples are not based on activities bought on by the government.

But the government didn't send the hurricane to New Orleans. They warned the people to leave.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

And get rid of the jury system, it doesn't belong in a country with a constitution and undermines the authority of judges, who actually know the law.

The purpose of the juries is to decide questions of fact, not questions of law.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I would certainly support compensation in any instance of misconduct on the part of the police or prosecuting attorneys. I'm not so sure about somebody who is wrongfully convicted "fairly".

[wade moore]

BTW.. I think a few people misread something Jon said...

He asked if victims of falsely ACQUITTED individuals would be compensated, not of falsely CONVICTED...

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Sounds reasonable to me to compensate people after false convictions. They lost income and were not able to build up a retirement fund. 2 million for 22 years doesn't even include compensation for the mental damage caused.

And get rid of the jury system, it doesn't belong in a country with a constitution and undermines the authority of judges, who actually know the law.

I think we should move to an internet-based voting system similar to Hot or Not.

[TroyF]

Wade,

I can agree with some of what you say, but not all.

A falesly convicted man is not like a hurricane vicitm. He didn't have a chance. He did everything he was supposed to do and it failed.

I see no problem giving some sort of a compensation package to those who have been wrongly convicted.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Wade,

I can agree with some of what you say, but not all.

A falesly convicted man is not like a hurricane vicitm. He didn't have a chance. He did everything he was supposed to do and it failed.

I see no problem giving some sort of a compensation package to those who have been wrongly convicted.

Maybe I'm taking too much of an extreme on the convicted person...

I think my initial shock to being able to sue for $2 million unsettled me...

If someone were to propose some logical, calculated compensation for wrongly convicted individuals I think I could get behind it. As I stated previously though, the idea that they can sue and some judge is deciding how much they get is very unsettling. If it was something reasonable though (not like almost $100,000 a year as this gentlemen received) that just automatically goes to anyone in this situation, I could see the logic in that.

The hurricane victim thing though, you'd have a hard time swaying me on that one.

[st.cronin]

To get back to the original question, having a conviction overturned or thrown out is NOT the same thing as being falsely imprisoned. Our justice system is incredibly messy, but I don't think there's a lot of innocent people being put in jail in this country.

Having said that, I think it's reasonable that some compensation be made in some cases - I suspect that this quietly happens anyway when serious injustice is uncovered.

[brimick79]

I'm going to touch on alot of things people have said here......but i'm way to lazy to quote everyone.

First of all I would agree with Wade's premise that people who have there lives uprooted as a result of a hurricane should not nessaciarly be fully compensated. That having been said the government has a responsibility to help those in need. Those who don't have the resources to help themselves. This is why we have medicaid and foster programs. How is helping a child without parents any different then helping parents without a home? Sure the parent has had their whole life to take precautions. But I'm talking about reality. People don't. I'm not saying they deserve to be fully compensated. They shouldn't be. But our government has a responsibility to help them. A very fundamental one. (I don't mean to start a debate about that issue....but I think few people would disagree with the theory)


Second, a person wrongly convicted of a crime deserves just compensation. I'm sorry but the state or the federal government depending on the case is the one doing the prosecuting. The jury simply decides if they have enough evidence. To say that just because the jury handed out the verdict means the government wasn't complicit in the act is just stupid. The jury was sworn in by judge, the jury system was created by the federal constution. The jury system is very much a part of the government. Anyother suggestion is ignorant. What just compensation might be is another debate. I don't think we can have that debate and try to answer the original question at the sametime. Two very different issues.

If the government doesn't exist to help people, what does it exist to do? That's what makes our country so great. Is that fundamentally the government has a responsibility to us.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Yes.

Me too

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Just to clarify the role of judges/juries in the American system:

Juries are used to determine the facts of a case. Judges decide the law.

So if you are accused of the crime of "Robbing a Place of Business," it may go something like this:

Let's say that someone broke into Jim's new house, which contains an office for Solecismic Software, and stole something from it. You are on trial for this crime. You present witnesses saying that you were with them at the time of the crime. The government presents witnesses saying that they saw you commit the crime.

The JURY determines the factual question: were you the individual who broke into the building. That is a fact, and it needs to be found by a jury.

Let's also say that, in addition to presenting witnesses saying that you were not there, you also argue that Jim's house is not "a Place of Business" because it is also a home. And let's say that the government says that a house with a home office is "a Place of Business" as that term is used in the statute.

The JUDGE will determine what the law means--what "a Place of Business" is as that term is used in the statute.

So the Judge and Jury actually should not step on each other's toes--they deal with different aspects of the trial. The Jury decides what actually happened. The judge decides the legal effect of those facts.

That is very very simplistic, but it is a decent thumbnail sketch of things, I think.

Lets not forget that a defendant can decide to have a judge decision the verdict instead of a jury trial. The fact that in all large cases they overwhelmingly take the jury, tells you something.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I don't feel they should get compensation unless the conviction was due to some gross negligence on the part of the court system. It is not the COURT that convicts these individuals, but a jury of their peers.

I'm really leary of a blanket law. What's to say you don't sloppily defend yourself, spend a couple of months in white collar prison, turn up this "new evidence" you didn't present, and walk out a rich man.

Originally Posted by John Galt

There is a funny thing about the wrongly convicted: they were poor and that is why they were wrongly convicted. Not having good legal representation is easily the number one reason people are wrongfully convicted. Being poor means you usually don't get that quality representation. To then say they shouldn't be compensated for having years off their life taken (in the name of keeping the rest of us safe) is kind of cruel to me.

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

They WORKED the evidence they had to get the desired result, a conviction. That is the way the system works. Whether you are guilty or not does not matter, it is if they can get a jury to believe you are guilty.

This touches on another difficult element of this. I would almost argue that with a jury of peers and the test of "beyond a reasonable doubt", if every person got so-called "OJ-level-defense" (ie an army of high priced lawyers)- no one would ever get convicted because the burden of proof is quite high and the law is so complex that some technicality is probably missed on most occasions. And is it fair to the next victim that a serial killer is let off because, say, the police didn't read him his Miranda rights or some other "technicality"?

SI

[brimick79]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And is it fair to the next victim that a serial killer is let off because, say, the police didn't read him his Miranda rights or some other "technicality"?

Absolutely not.

But that completely misses the point.

Our justice system does not exist to protect society. Or to punish the guilty.
It exists to protect the innocent. Our system has mainy failsafes to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and not railedroaded. The problem is most people wanna see anyone who is arrested locked up and have the key thrown away.

But the system doesn't exist for that to happen. It exists to protect those wrongfully accused. And to protect the wrongfully accused....many guilty people must be accquited or have their cases thrown out on technicalities.
That's a tradeoff and if you're not willing to take it please move to the middle east. You'll be much more at home.

[brimick79]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

This touches on another difficult element of this. I would almost argue that with a jury of peers and the test of "beyond a reasonable doubt", if every person got so-called "OJ-level-defense" (ie an army of high priced lawyers)- no one would ever get convicted

SI

Well that's bullshit. Much of the evidence in the OJ case was so obviously planted it's foolish to even discuss as if it was an average case. The more important thing I would say from the OJ case was that the science worked for the defense. They were able to scientifically show that much of the evidence was likely planted. Take for instance some of the blood that was found on some of his clothes. Not only did the defense show that blood had been in a test tube. But also that the exactamount of blood that was unaccounted for from after they tested him was the same amount of blood found on that piece of clothing.

So let's not talk about OJ as if he got away with something. The system worked. He was probably guilty. Beyond a reasone doubt? With so much of the evidence having been planted no fucking way.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by brimick79

So let's not talk about OJ as if he got away with something. The system worked. He was probably guilty. Beyond a reasone doubt? With so much of the evidence having been planted no fucking way.

Well, and that's the thing- this had nothing to do with OJ tho you seem to have wrongly taken offense and seemed that I implied something I did not. I don't presume to know if he was guilty or innocent. I didn't see the testamony- no one did. I don't know about "planted evidence" or whatever you claim to know. Quit putting words in my mouth.

My point is that if the standards of the justice system are "beyond a reasonable doubt" to a jury of peers who either are too dumb or too principled to get out of jury duty (heck, I tried to get on a jury when I was called) then a team of high priced lawyers will always be able to create a shred of reasonable doubt. Just because few things in life are beyond a resonable doubt.

SI

[Joe]

Originally Posted by brimick79

Well that's bullshit. Much of the evidence in the OJ case was so obviously planted it's foolish to even discuss as if it was an average case.

lol what

[brimick79]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Well, and that's the thing- this had nothing to do with OJ tho you seem to have wrongly taken offense and seemed that I implied something I did not. I don't presume to know if he was guilty or innocent. I didn't see the testamony- no one did. I don't know about "planted evidence" or whatever you claim to know. Quit putting words in my mouth.

My point is that if the standards of the justice system are "beyond a reasonable doubt" to a jury of peers who either are too dumb or too principled to get out of jury duty (heck, I tried to get on a jury when I was called) then a team of high priced lawyers will always be able to create a shred of reasonable doubt. Just because few things in life are beyond a resonable doubt.

SI

My point was we really shouldn't bring OJ into this conversation. You say if everyone could afford an army of high priced lawyers everyone would be acquitted. Well the thing is very few accused can. Personally I wish everyone could (and I actually think that the state should be compelled to give the defendants the same resources the prosecution recieves.....but that's for another debate) afford high priced lawyers. I wish everyone had the resources to put every piece of evidence against them under scrutiny. That's how the system should work.

But so few can afford that. It's really a small sample size of the actual number of trials. I contend that even if everyone could afford high priced representation the vast majority of cases would still be plea bargained.

But it's impossible to say wether the average gang banger would be viewed any diferent if he had a high priced attorney.

Another thing. Many famous recent cases had average defendants whom had access to quality represantation. Take Scott Peterson and David Westerfield. Two famous convictions and both had quality lawyers. It's not open and shut.

The bigger issue is the celebrities. Celebirties are not acquitted because of high priced lawyers. They're acquitted because most jurors feel it would say something bad about them if they convicted someone famous. Afterall they made them famous in the firstplace or atleast feel they did.

But I really don't think there would be much impact if random people had access to the same defense that the celebirties do. Certainly there would be some, but it would be relatively minimal.

[Grammaticus]

Here is a sub question; do you think everyone who is rightfully convicted should have to compensate the state for the cost of trial and incarceration?

[brimick79]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Here is a sub question; do you think everyone who is rightfully convicted should have to compensate the state for the cost of trial and incarceration?

I dunno but I feel compelled to say I really don't care. As long as they're reimbursed if the conviction is later vacated.