Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

False Criminal Convictions

Rate this topic


punk

Recommended Posts

In any legal system one is going to get both the guilty that go free and the innocent that are wrongly convicted and punished for a crime. In practice the more we work to minimize the number of innocent who are convicted, likely the more guilty will go unconvicted....

Anyway in practice there will probably be a number of people falsely punshed for a crime.

Question:

How should an objectivist society treat a person who has been shown to have been falsely convicted and punished? Should the person be just set free, or should they be compensated by the government? (I guess I'm assuming an objectivist society would have prisons)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How should an objectivist society treat a person who has been shown to have been falsely convicted and punished?  Should the person be just set free, or should they be compensated by the government? (I guess I'm assuming an objectivist society would have prisons)

You have to distinguish cases where there was a just conviction in error, and an unjust conviction in error. If the evidence satisfies the standard of proof and the rule of law of followed carefully, a person can be convicted falsely "by accident". Or, relevant evidence can be knowingly suppressed or destroyed, or disregarded. The latter would be a tort which entitles the victim to sue for compensation, the reason being that the person (assuming for instance that it is the prosecutor who hides evidence) has a guilty state of mind, knowing that this DNA evidence would introduce doubt, which would prevent conviction. In that case, the person being sued might be different in each case, for example the prosecutor might be guilty in one case, the arresting officer in another, a lab technician in a third case. The state is responsible for those errors only to the extent that the wrong-doer is acting as the agent of the state. If the wrong-doer is a juror (or all of the jurors), then it is probably a matter between the victim and the juror.

If all parties are acting honestly and there is no negligence (e.g. sloppy lab work, sloppy application of the law), then the victim would not be entitled to compensation. At the same time, you could optionally make it a matter of policy that the state would compensate victims who were convicted mistakenly but justly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the same time, you could optionally make it a matter of policy that the state would compensate victims who were convicted mistakenly but justly.

Hello everyone. This is my first post.

I don’t see how the state has the option of creating a compensation plan for those who are justly convicted of a crime they did not commit.

I can see such assistance being offered by concerned citizens, either one-on-one or through organizations that focus on helping to minimize the consequences of such tragedies, but I don’t think the state has any business compensating for honest errors.

JH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t see how the state has the option of creating a compensation plan for those who are justly convicted of a crime they did not commit.

I can see such assistance being offered by concerned citizens, either one-on-one or through organizations that focus on helping to minimize the consequences of such tragedies, but I don’t think the state has any business compensating for honest errors.

Because the state used its awsome power to deprive a person of his rights, when the accused has done nothing to deserve such a deprivation. It is also not the business of government of forcibly deprive people of their rights, and some compensation for victims of improper imprisonment is an appropriate way of recognising that the punishment was in error, and of attempting to render justice. The state has no business using force against innocent citizens, but it is inevitable that the state will do some things that it has no business doing in a very narrow sense. It is therefore equally appropriate that the state make some attempt to restore the balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Odden wrote:

"Because the state used its awsome power to deprive a person of his rights, when the accused has done nothing to deserve such a deprivation."

But the state didn't focus its awsome power to deprive a citizen of his rights. In the pursuit of justice, even with all the safety-nets in place, an innocent error was made.

Mr Odden writes, further on:

" The state has no business using force against innocent citizens, but it is inevitable that the state will do some things that it has no business doing in a very narrow sense."

I agree but if an innocent man is imprissoned as in our scenario, the state hasn't innitiated force to achieve ends "it has no business" persuing. If it can be shown that the wrongful conviction resulted from government neglegence or corruption, then the victim is due compensation.

Irrelevant to the main point:

Even in today's culutre, I believe that an organization can be set-up to help those imprissomed in error -- in a perfect, more selfsh world, it may even be possible to make a profit at it.

All the best,

JohnRGT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the state didn't focus its awsome power to deprive a citizen of his rights.  In the pursuit of justice, even with all the safety-nets in place, an innocent error was made.

But this is possible (the unjust curtailment of rights) is only possile because of the power of the sttate.

I agree but if an innocent man is imprissoned as in our scenario, the state hasn't innitiated force to achieve ends "it has no business" persuing.  If it can be shown that the wrongful conviction resulted from government neglegence or corruption, then the victim is due compensation.
That's correct but irrelevant. The underlying assumption in this discussion is that there has been no tort action by the state or its agents -- if there is then the state has an obligation to compensate the victim. You need to make a distinction between morally obligatory acts and optional acts: I'm saying that in lieu of a tort, the state may compenste the victim of unjust punishment.

Even in today's culutre, I believe that an organization can be set-up to help those imprissomed in error -- in a perfect, more selfsh world, it may even be possible to make a profit at it.

That too is an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Odden wrote:

"But this is possible (the unjust curtailment of rights) is only possile because of the power of the sttate."

My point is that since the error we're discussing is "honest", I don't see how it can be described as "initiation of force."

What's brought about the scenario we're discussing in this thread is an incredible fluke or coincidence -- not the government's pursuit of justice.

Mr. Odden:

"You need to make a distinction between morally obligatory acts and optional acts: I'm saying that in lieu of a tort, the state may compenste the victim of unjust punishment."

I'm not familiar with the concept of "optional acts" as it pertains to governments. If someone can point me to the relelvant Objectivist material I would appreciate it.

As I hold things presently, I am very uncomfortable with the idea of a government either undertaking, or having the option of undertaking, a financial obligation where there's no government wrong-doing -- irrespective of the severity of the tragedy.

Regards,

JohnRgt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I hold things presently, I am very uncomfortable with the idea of a government either undertaking, or having the option of undertaking, a financial obligation where there's no government wrong-doing -- irrespective of the severity of the tragedy.

You need to pay closer attention to what I actually said and not try to twist the meaning. I denied that the state has an obligation to make such payments (when there is no tort).

If you are sufficiently uncomfortable with that particular plan of government, but the majority of citizens in your jurisdiction see wisdom in such compensation, then you can simply vote with your feet or wallet, depending on how much it upsets you to see the state doing something to right an accidental wrong. Your approval is not required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Odden wrote:

"You need to pay closer attention to what I actually said and not try to twist the meaning. I denied that the state has an obligation to make such payments (when there is no tort)."

I have not twisted what you've written, Mr. Odden. You leave compensation as an option of the populus. I don't see how a government, local or larger can have an option of this sort.

Mr Odden:

"If you are sufficiently uncomfortable with that particular plan of government, but the majority of citizens in your jurisdiction see wisdom in such compensation, then you can simply vote with your feet or wallet, depending on how much it upsets you to see the state doing something to right an accidental wrong. Your approval is not required."

Are you not advocating democracy in the above? My rights cannot be limited to protesting the majority's views, as they tax me to step outside the purvue of government. Defining "rights" in this way negates the concept "rights".

If any, most, or almost all of the citizens in my district want to help a wrongly imprissoned man get his life in order, they are free to do so by going into their own wallet and/or by hitting the pavement to bring attention to the case.

What they cannot do in a free nation is collect taxes in order to compensate for a tragic mishap -- a mishap that had nothing to do with initiation of force.

Regards,

JH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My rights cannot be limited to protesting the majority's views, as they tax me to step outside the purvue of government.  Defining "rights" in this way negates the concept "rights".

I see where the problem lies. Objectivism does not support coercive taxation to finance the operations of government -- see "Government Financing in a Free Society", VOS ch. 15. There is no "right to tax".

If any, most, or almost all of the citizens in my district want to help a wrongly imprissoned man get his life in order, they are free to do so by going into their own wallet and/or by hitting the pavement to bring attention to the case.
Yes, or the government can, if the citizens approve, institute such a plan. Whether or not such a plan is viable in the long run would be determined by whether people chose to contribute. Hence the voting with your wallet (or by voting for the kind of legislators that reflects your view and would oppose such a plan).

What they cannot do in a free nation is collect taxes in order to compensate for a tragic mishap -- a mishap that had nothing to do with initiation of force.

Or collect taxes for any other purpose. You seem to have made the mistaken presumption that Objectivism supports taxation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone.  This is my first post.

Welcome!

I don’t see how the state has the option of creating a compensation plan for those who are justly convicted of a crime they did not commit.

I don't think the state has the option of compensating someone wrongly convicted. I think they have the OBLIGATION to compensate him.

That is because the government's function and reason for being is the protection and defense of rights. If, even by honest error, they deprive an innocent person of his liberty or property, they owe him compensation for his loss just as would be the case in a civil matter between private parties.

The same is true whenever a government uses force against innocent citizens. Thus I think the government should pay the legal expenses of people found not guilty in a criminal trial and also compensate witnesses that are subpoenaed to appear in criminal trials.

The losing party should also pay the legal fees and for subpoenaed witnesses in civil trials. "Loser pays" is a good idea since it preserves the right of the innocent party and discourages unwarranted legal actions initiated by private citizens OR by the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The possibility of compensation for wrongful convictions is an important deterrent against malicious, corrupt, sloppy, or unprofessional practices. Requiring police departments to be insured against wrongful conviction is one way to handle this. The insurer would determine whether a department was qualified to prosecute a given crime, and thus ensure the efficient level of procedure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I was viewing this was that when a legal system is set up it is implicitly trying to balance a rate of letting the guilty go free, and the rate of convicting the innocent. So if you want to punish very few innocent people, you are going to let a larger number of the guilty go free. Similarly if you want to convict as many of the guilty as possible you are going to punish more innocent people.

This is just reality, as there is never going to be a perfect system of arriving at the guilt of a person accused of a crime.

By placing the bar where it will, the state is choosing an expected rate of false convictions. Since this is a conscious choice on the part of the state, I was thinking it should be prepared for the consequences, and be prepared to make just compensation.

The flip side of this is then the guilty that have gone free. What if a guilty party that has been let go proceeds to commit another crime? Is the state liable to the victims of that crime for damages?

I agree with the idea that in principle if such liabilities are recognized, the state will should take out insurance against this. The upside is that the insurance companies now function as a watchdog on the state to make sure it is meeting its obligations in the application of the law.

Perhaps this sort of thing can function to keep a capitalist state within its proper bounds. We cannot assume that a state will not try to accue more power without some sort of outside supervision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The state is not financially liable for failure (letting the guilty go free), but it is liable to be overthrown if it is incompetent or malicious.

Analogously, the grocery store owner is not financially liable for selling you a bad apple, but it is very short-sighted business practice to hide behind technical liability and refuse to compensate a customer who gets the fuzzy end of the lollipop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...