Restitution

[Alpo]

Suppose someone is wrongly convicted of a crime. Sent to prison where he serves several years.

 

Then he is found to be innocent, and is given a pardon and is released with the apologies of the governor.

 

Would the state give him any money?

 

NCIS episode, and this 18-year-old Marine is convicted of fragging his lieutenant and sentenced to life, and 48 years later they find that he didn't did it.

 

So they let him go. He's 66 years old and has spent three quarters of his life in prison. He probably doesn't have any idea how to live on the outside, and what would he live on?

 

So I wondered if the government - since he was a Marine convicted of murdering another Marine I presume he was in a federal prison so this would make it the US government - would give him any money to make up for it?

[Texas Joker]

Might could give him pay commensurate with time in service and rank increases.

 

You see news articles about this once in a while. Those guys get a settlement 

[Hashknife Cowboy]

Wrongful convictions, yes.

[Subdeacon Joe]

In civilian courts and prison,  there is usually considerable monetary compensation.   

I'm assuming this guy was convicted by Courts Martial, and so I have no idea.  I  would hope so.  As well as automatic promotions, back pay, and reinstatement of pension and benefits. 

 

ADDED:

In wrongful convictions I think that the prosecutor, and in this case the officers who made up the Court,  should be, at minimum,  stripped of all pension and benefits. If those officers are still in, they should be reduced in grade to E-1.

Edited March 19 by Subdeacon Joe

[Chantry]

17 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

ADDED:

In wrongful convictions I think that the prosecutor, and in this case the officers who made up the Court,  should be, at minimum,  stripped of all pension and benefits. If those officers are still in, they should be reduced in grade to E-1.

 

If intentional I would agree, but not if they made the decision in good faith based on what they knew at the time.

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

I think it’s not a pardon.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

I had a case once that collaterally involved a man who was exonerated of a rape conviction by DNA evidence, after 15 years in prison. The Innocence Project did the work that got him freed. I had occasion to meet and take the deposition of Peter Neufeld, who along with Barry Scheck founded the project.

 

The man received a large settlement in that case. It varies state by state. Many now have statutes governing the issue. Much of the funding for the Innocence Project comes from such settlements, as does their income.

 

At that time, I did a pretty deep  dive into the work of the Innocence Project. One recurring thing in many cases was the unwillingness of the former DA/prosecutors, investigating officers (often now retired), etc. to admit that they had been wrong, even in really crystal-clear circumstances. They simply could not admit that their (often less than great) work had led to an innocent man spending years in prison. (These cases did not involve intentional wrongdoing on their parts.) They remained convinced that they had been right.

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

50 minutes ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

One recurring thing in many cases was the unwillingness of the former DA/prosecutors, investigating officers (often now retired), etc. to admit that they had been wrong, even in really crystal-clear circumstances. They simply could not admit that their (often less than great) work had led to an innocent man spending years in prison. (These cases did not involve intentional wrongdoing on their parts.) They remained convinced that they had been right.

Just to clarify, would they not ADMIT that they were wrong, or not ACCEPT the fact that they were wrong?

[DeaconKC]

7 minutes ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

Just to clarify, would they not ADMIT that they were wrong, or not ACCEPT the fact that they were wrong?

They are human too, so it is both.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

14 minutes ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

Just to clarify, would they not ADMIT that they were wrong, or not ACCEPT the fact that they were wrong?

 

"Accept" would be the better way of putting it. But 'admit' may be part of it.

 

In the case in which I had some involvement (which arose out of an agency and courts in another state), the man whose testimony (supposedly 'scientific') was significant in securing the conviction could not accept that he had been wrong. He said that there must have been an accomplice to explain it, but of course the victim testified to one assailant only. This 'refusal to accept' was quite common, as it turned out, in many other such cases that I reviewed.

 

There was a long-after coda to the case I had been involved in. Just a few years back, and more than 25 years after the original crime, the state in question got a perfect DNA match with a man who had just been taken in to custody for some other crime. He had an old record, but his DNA had never been extracted before. In short, he was the actual culprit. He could not be prosecuted for the original crime, as the statute of limitations had long since run. Interestingly, he looked a bit like the man who'd been wrongfully convicted.

 

I've often wondered if that 'scientific' witness found out about that later arrest (several years after our case concluded), and what that may have done to his attitude of denial...

Edited March 19 by Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

2 minutes ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

"Accept" would be the better way of putting it.

Thank You Sir.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

Explaining the phenomenon is not easy. It seems to me that it is some sort of defense mechanism, and an insight into human nature.

 

Of course, it was not universal in these cases by any means, but it was common.

[Badlands Bob #61228]

It was always one of my greatest fears to send someone to prison who was innocent.   i hope it never happened.