18 months in prison, no compensation

[Jaggy Bunnet]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4163705.stm

Convicted of murdering her children, imprisoned for 18 mths. Conviction quashed because the key prosecution witness was "discredited".

Not entitled to any compensation for that period because the witness, while appearing for the (state) prosecution was not a direct government employee.

Great comment from the Home Office spokeswoman, compensation explaining that compensation is due in certain circumstances including an appeal that "occurs outside the normal appeal process and is successful because new facts have come to light." Unfortunately that does not appear to include that fact that the prosecution witness gave statistical evidence which had no statistical basis.

His grasp of statistics can be seen from "Meadow's law":

"one sudden infant death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder, unless proven otherwise."

The state chose to call this man as a witness, they used his evidence as the basis to deny this woman (and others) their liberty, and now they refuse to compensate them.

Its pathetic.

 

[Zamzara]

I agree, the worst thing is that at the time everyone I asked agreed there was no evidence against this woman and other similar accused women like Sally Clark.

The point these 'experts' have missed, which is obvious to anyone with a grain of common sense, is that cot death could be either environmentally caused or genetically caused, which means multiple child deaths within a family are to be expected, especially in a large population. Even if the odds are '1 billion to 1' against as this moron claimed, that would still be one occurence every 20 years in a popualtion of 50 million.

 

[Jon_in_london]

meanwhile any pikey scumbag who stubs their toes on the pavement gets massive compo!

 

[Mycroft]

Why should she be compensated?

We don't know that she's innocent, only that her conviction was overturned.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Why should she be compensated?

We don't know that she's innocent, only that her conviction was overturned.

Normally that means we assume the person to be innocent.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Why should she be compensated?

We don't know that she's innocent, only that her conviction was overturned.

I don't know that you are not a murderer. Should you be locked up until you can prove your innocence?

 

[Cleon]

Why should she be compensated?

We don't know that she's innocent, only that her conviction was overturned.

Um...Do the words "innocent until proven guilty" mean anything? If the "proven guilty" part was thrown out, she's innocent.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

meanwhile any pikey scumbag who stubs their toes on the pavement gets massive compo!

It gets better. On BBC Radio 5 tonight the reasons why she was not entitled to compensation were the wtiness was not a government employee (as mentioned above) and the criminal justice system operated correctly.

Locking up an innocent person for 18 months is the system operating correctly? I'd hate to see what happens when it fails.

 

[CBL4]

On BBC Radio 5 tonight the reasons why she was not entitled to compensation were the wtiness was not a government employee (as mentioned above) and the criminal justice system operated correctly

I think the "correctly" part depends on the credibility of the expert witness at the time.

If there was an effort to find a biased, unreliable "expert", then clearly the prosecutors acted improperly. If they had reasons to believe his "expertness", then I think they acted a little carelessly by not researching more fully.

To me it is closer to finding out that the forensic examiner is not running tests properly. Until you find this out, you assume, reasonable, the tests results are accurate. Once you find out the tests inaccurate, you immediately release the prisoner and give them some compensation.

Is the "expert" in jail for reckless endangerment or some such crime? He should be and he should be the one to pay most of the compensation.

CBL

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Convicted of murdering her children, imprisoned for 18 mths. Conviction quashed because the key prosecution witness was "discredited".

Not entitled to any compensation for that period because the witness, while appearing for the (state) prosecution was not a direct government employee.

That's atrocious.

I damn well want my tax money spent on compensating anyone who is wrongfully convicted, regardless of whose fault it was (unless it was their fault). No questions, no exceptions. No innocent person should suffer because of the court system, ever.

 

[Cain]

Re: Re: 18 months in prison, no compensation

No innocent person should suffer because of the court system, ever.

It's the nature of the beast. Innocent people will be punished under any court system we set up. Fact. Moreover, if the burden of proof became even more demanding, then it's possible that a greater number of innocent people would suffer as a result of criminals avoiding prison and committing future crimes.

One of the dumber cliches which continually crops up in these debates is the willingness to see "ten guilty men set free rather than one innocent man punished." By what moral calculus does a person reach this conclusion?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Re: Re: Re: 18 months in prison, no compensation

It's the nature of the beast. Innocent people will be punished under any court system we set up. Fact. Moreover, if the burden of proof became even more demanding, then it's possible that a greater number of innocent people would suffer as a result of criminals avoiding prison and committing future crimes.

Then it should be the nature of the beast that we compensate people whose lives have proveably been injured by miscarriages of justice. Why should innocent individuals have to shoulder the burden of our legal system's limits?

One of the dumber cliches which continually crops up in these debates is the willingness to see "ten guilty men set free rather than one innocent man punished." By what moral calculus does a person reach this conclusion?

I guess they think of themselves as innocent people and apply enlightened self-interest.

 

[Cain]

Re: Re: Re: Re: 18 months in prison, no compensation

Then it should be the nature of the beast that we compensate people whose lives have proveably been injured by miscarriages of justice. Why should innocent individuals have to shoulder the burden of our legal system's limits?

I agree she should be compensated.

I guess they think of themselves as innocent people and apply enlightened self-interest.

Perhaps. Of course you don't need a law and order Republican to point out that if the justice system had safeguards to insure that no innocent person is EVER sent to jail, then the public would NOT be safe. That is to say, innocent people on "the outside" could face a greater criminal threat; the courts' inaction has in effect victimized even more innocents. Needless to say, the application of this cost-benefit analysis has frightening implications not just for courtroom justice, but our civil liberties in general.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 18 months in prison, no compensation

Perhaps. Of course you don't need a law and order Republican to point out that if the justice system had safeguards to insure that no innocent person is EVER sent to jail, then the public would NOT be safe. That is to say, innocent people on "the outside" could face a greater criminal threat; the courts' inaction has in effect victimized even more innocents. Needless to say, the application of this cost-benefit analysis has frightening implications not just for courtroom justice, but our civil liberties in general.

Surely that depends very much on the weighting you apply to unjust imprisonment compared to other crimes.

Not many criminals keep people imprisoned for ten years, and if they did so we'd expect them to be punished very harshly indeed.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't know that you are not a murderer. Should you be locked up until you can prove your innocence?

Apples and oranges. She was proven guilty in a court of law, not merely locked up on suspicion.

Um...Do the words "innocent until proven guilty" mean anything? If the "proven guilty" part was thrown out, she's innocent.

I assume she was only locked up during the time she was officially "proven guilty", that is the period of time between her conviction and when the conviction was overturned.