People wrongly convicted of crimes: The issue of compensation for deserving victims

-

State prosecutors often try to prosecute as many suspects of crimes as possible not only to punish such offenders but also to reduce the risk of their re-offending and deter commissioning of crimes. They can do unthinkable things while trying to apprehend such perpetrators of crimes and present misleading perception that lawbreakers are being held accountable for their crimes. As a result many people tend to be wrongly convicted of crimes for which they did not commit. The cases of Birmingham Six (1989), Guildford four (1991), and Bridgwater Four (1997) in the United Kingdom clearly demonstrate this point. In all of these cases the victims were prosecuted, found guilty and incarcerated for offences they did not commit. Following these incidents the British government has enacted law governing the type of evidence that can be used in prosecution of crime suspects and how such evidence can be gathered during investigations. There is a provision for compensation of people wrongly convicted of crimes in the United Kingdom but this scheme is also applicable in other western nations. However, it is not every person who is wrongly convicted of a crime that is entitled to such compensation.

When it comes to compensation of people wrongly convicted of crimes, there are two categories of victims. The deserving victims are people who are considered to be fully innocent of crimes for which they were initially convicted. That is, all available evidence regarding the commissioning of the crimes shows that these people did not commit them and should not have been found guilty for them. By contrast, the undeserving people wrongly convicted of crimes are those who are considered to be half innocent of crimes for which they were found guilty. These victims are those who are perceived to have played a role in the commissioning of the crimes but cannot be linked directly to such crimes because of insufficient evidence against the people. The deserving victims of miscarriage of justice receive compensation for their experience but the undeserving victims do not. Thus, in countries such as United Kingdom and United States, compensation for miscarriage of justice is not always automatic. Victims are required to file for compensation before they can establish whether they are deserving victims of miscarriage of justice.

By contrast in countries such as Germany, Finland, Bulgaria, and Denmark there is no distinction between deserving and undeserving people wrongly convicted of crimes. Once it is established that an individual has been wrongly punished for a crime, he or she will receive compensation for it. In other words, compensation for people wrongly convicted of crimes in these countries is automatic.

Determining whether a person who was wrongly convicted of crime deserves compensation is contrary to the principles of presumption of innocence for a crime and the criminal court. The presumption of innocence states that every person is presumed innocent of a crime until he or she is found guilty of it by the criminal court. The criminal court will find a defendant of a crime either guilty of it or not guilty. It does not make a mid-way house judgment in which a defendant is found partly guilty and partly not guilty of the same crime. Therefore, arguing that a person who was previously convicted of a crime but later found not guilty of it is not deserving of compensation goes against these principles.

For the sake of justice and fairness there should be no distinction between deserving and undeserving people wrongly convicted of crimes. Every person who has been convicted of a crime but later found not guilty of it should be considered to be deserving of compensation. Denying this individual the right to compensation will contradict the verdict that the defendant is not guilty of the crime and make mockery of the court verdict.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Spanish Dog Fouling Law: Are Spanish Politicians Pursuing The Wrong Agenda?

-
Image
 Dog fouling Spain has some of the strictest laws regarding pets possession in Europe. One of its laws governing animal possession in Spain, for example, bans having exotic creatures as pets and requires dog, cat and ferret owners to declare their animals to the authority within three months of bringing them into the country. Until recently, however, Spain has no law nor sanction for failure to clean up after dog fouling in public places. It was up to dog owners whether to clean up such mess. This has now changed following the introduction of the dog fouling law. The new law states that the fine for any person failing to clean up after his or her dog fouling in a public place such as a park or kids play ground should be 1500 euros. The rationale for this legislation is to deter dog owners from leaving their dogs messing up public places such as parks. Regular visitors to parks can testify how the sight of such dog foul can be an eyesore. However, asking dog owners wh
Read more

Social Media Networks: Calls For Tighter Regulations

-
One of the most fascinating technological inventions of the twenty first century is the development of social media networks such as YouTube, Twitter, and Face book. These social media networks make it possible for people to meet new people and make friends, locate old friends and family members, or to form a relationship that can result in marriage. They also provide a platform in the form of advertising for conducting businesses. Despite these benefits provided by the social media networks certain things can go awfully wrong on the networks. The most recent example of how the social media network can be turned into a weapon of criminality is the case last week involving threatening rape and murder messages sent to a number of British women on Twitter. Feminists are attempting to use this incident to rally for support for tighter regulations on activities being conducted within social media networks. Is it possible to control activities within these networks? Having legislat
Read more

Marketing Tricks: How Many Times Have You Fallen Victim?

-
Image
 Fat free food Whereas business owners call them marketing strategies, none business owners regard them as marketing tricks. Regardless of what you like to call them, businesses cannot survive without marketing tricks. Marketing tricks are the flywheel that keeps businesses engine running. We tend not to be concerned about them because of our perception that we are familiar with them and can avoid them. However, a careful look at the marketing tricks used by businesses will reveal that many of us have fallen victims of them in the past and can still fall victim of the malpractice in future. Let us consider two of these popular tricks used in supermarkets. The first marketing trick used by retailers is relating to the slogan “75% reduced fat”. Items labelled 75% reduced fat are often displayed on supermarket shelves. Some of us who are conscious of our health tend to go for them to avoid consuming excess fat. Excess fat in the body is considered to be a risk factor for
Read more