Nigel Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 If a man is wrongfully convicted of a crime that he did not commit and later found innocent, is he entitled to restitution for his suffering? Who is responsible for paying this restitution? If a man is jailed and awaits trial for a lengthy period of time before being found innocent, is he entitled to restitution for his suffering? The accused frequently wait months to somtimes years before a conviction is rendered. Regardless of time, the consequences of being tried for a crime in which you are innocent are far reaching and go beyond the short lived time spent in jail; loss of job, income, etc. Must man be willing to sacrifice his freedom upon accusation in order to achieve the social goal of a safe, just society? At what level is it acceptable to deny a man's freedom by force in order to ensure the safety of society? Is "beyond reasonabale doubt" enough certainty to justify the denial of a man's freedom? What is reasonable? I know this is a lot of questions, sorry. Maliciously accusing someone is not what I am getting at here. I talking about a person who has been accused based on some level of concrete (though false) evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 Read my One Minute Case For Strict Civil Liability of the Justice System. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted July 10, 2012 Report Share Posted July 10, 2012 Justice prolonged is justice denied. An accused should be on bail if there is no reasonable possibility that he may escape trial or interfere with the process of investigation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.