Super-Harsh

Gilly · 27 Jan 2013 at 10:50

aln said:
If you apply the presumption of innocence, there is no such distinction, nor should there be.

Even in the case of someone already convicted of the crime?

Seems odd to presume someone innocent if they've already been branded guilty.

lurkio · 27 Jan 2013 at 10:58

Lets remember kids the cops NEVER get it wrong so he must be guilty

aln · 27 Jan 2013 at 11:00

Gilly said:
Even in the case of someone already convicted of the crime?

Seems odd to presume someone innocent if they've already been branded guilty.

When verdict has been called into question then yes, you go back to the default being that it's no longer proven. It's the only sensible way to act.

You guys seem too caught up with worrying that a few bad eggs will escape justice to realise the whole point of the presumption of innocence is to protect the innocent, which is much more important than punishing the guilty.

Nitefly · 27 Jan 2013 at 13:10

semi-pro waster said:
Perhaps I misunderstood your intent here but it sounded very much as if you were suggesting that new evidence could mean the initial decision was wrong based on the evidence available at the time. There's wrong in an absolute sense and wrong in an objective sense - it could be objectively a fair decision based on the information/evidence presented and yet be imprisoning an innocent person. In a retrial you're right that it's a fresh look at all the evidence - maybe I was being a bit slow in not realising that was what you meant.

I am, however, thinking more on the question of compensation. If evidence was suppressed or should otherwise have come if all parties were doing a reasonable job and that led to the conviction of an innocent party then compensation would be the minimum for equity. If the new evidence was revealed in circumstances other than that then I suppose it depends on the instant case - that's where judicial discretion would be useful.

Yes, I think you initially misunderstood me

semi-pro waster said:
Errors in procedure such as in the chain of custody?

Not really sure what the point in this comment is though, I was obviously referring to a jury's decision on the evidence in front of them

Dolph said:
I agree with the court, the new test is quite specific in the way it works, and has the form it does to ensure that only people who are innocent beyond all reasonable doubt get compensation. it almost adds the scottish verdict of 'not proven' as an unofficial position following an appeal.

This strikes me as a reasonable balance between ensuring the legal system has barriers against unfair treatment of defendents, and ensuring the legal system has barriers against unfair treatment for the taxpayer.

I think that's a bad distinction. You either did it and face the consequences, or you didn't do it and should be free from any burdens. Only compensating those who you can be sure did not commit a crime is ridiculously narrow category. It seems quite clear to me that it should be all or nothing as otherwise you are essentially punishing someone on a lack of evidence.

It should not be the same burden to prove innocence as for guilt.

Dolph · 27 Jan 2013 at 14:35

Nitefly said:
I think that's a bad distinction. You either did it and face the consequences, or you didn't do it and should be free from any burdens. Only compensating those who you can be sure did not commit a crime is ridiculously narrow category. It seems quite clear to me that it should be all or nothing as otherwise you are essentially punishing someone on a lack of evidence.

It should not be the same burden to prove innocence as for guilt.

surely that depends on the context? remember that compensation is effectively punishment of the taxpayer.

Should the taxpayer be punished when there is no evidence of wrongdoing? The burden of proof for conviction is high to protect the accused, which is correct, but why should the taxpayer not be subject to the same protection when it comes to punishing them for what their representatives do in their name?

Allnamestaken · 27 Jan 2013 at 17:02

Dolph the guy was wrongly put away for 8 years....
IF that happens to you would you not want some compensation? Think of what its done to the guy if he is truely innocent.

Nitefly · 27 Jan 2013 at 23:38

Dolph said:
surely that depends on the context? remember that compensation is effectively punishment of the taxpayer.

Should the taxpayer be punished when there is no evidence of wrongdoing? The burden of proof for conviction is high to protect the accused, which is correct, but why should the taxpayer not be subject to the same protection when it comes to punishing them for what their representatives do in their name?

Because the tax payers as a collective are easily able to carry that burden, as opposed to one man who has already suffered 8 years imprisonment. Obviously the extent of that compensation should be capped, but to deny compensation in its entirely is pretty wacky to me.

Raymond Lin · 27 Jan 2013 at 23:40

Dolph said:
surely that depends on the context? remember that compensation is effectively punishment of the taxpayer.

Should the taxpayer be punished when there is no evidence of wrongdoing? The burden of proof for conviction is high to protect the accused, which is correct, but why should the taxpayer not be subject to the same protection when it comes to punishing them for what their representatives do in their name?

CPS take out insurance, if such cases like this happens. Insurance company pays and remove this problem completely?

Diagro · 28 Jan 2013 at 02:30

he should get a pay out... he lost a decade of his life...

Dolph · 28 Jan 2013 at 07:23

Nitefly said:
Because the tax payers as a collective are easily able to carry that burden, as opposed to one man who has already suffered 8 years imprisonment. Obviously the extent of that compensation should be capped, but to deny compensation in its entirely is pretty wacky to me.

Whether the taxpayer as a collective can afford it is irrelevent. The principle of fairness demands that the same tests are applied to both parties before punishment is administered.

Raymond Lin said:
CPS take out insurance, if such cases like this happens. Insurance company pays and remove this problem completely?

Broken window fallacy alert...

Danthus · 28 Jan 2013 at 08:14

He was unanimously acquitted, he deserves to be compensated.

chriscubed · 28 Jan 2013 at 08:53

Dolph said:
Whether the taxpayer as a collective can afford it is irrelevent. The principle of fairness demands that the same tests are applied to both parties before punishment is administered.

I understand what you're saying, but it isn't "a punishment" on the taxpayer. It is a necessary cost associated with the risk of putting people in jail. The state put him in jail wrongly, the state compensates him. The taxpayer put him in jail wrongly, the taxpayer compensates him.

The taxpayer pays for all manner of necessary costs which aren't "fair" for them to have to pay for, but they do it on the principle that if it was them, or their loved-ones, then the burden of unfairness would not be put on them.

For instance, neither myself nor any of my family are disabled in any way. We pay our taxes, some of which happily goes towards supporting disabled people. But we do this in the knowledge that if we were in that situation, then the same support would be given to us, so that the burden would be placed on the taxpayer as a collective, who can afford it, not put on people who can neither afford or deserve it.

Robosapien · 28 Jan 2013 at 09:02

Dolph said:
Whether the taxpayer as a collective can afford it is irrelevent. The principle of fairness demands that the same tests are applied to both parties before punishment is administered.

Broken window fallacy alert...

Unethical prioritizing of net-benefit to society against ruining an individual's life aside, I fail to see how if said test is applied to the taxpayer, the test does not actually reveal any wrongdoing? Isn't ignorance "no defense" in such things...

elmarko · 28 Jan 2013 at 09:11

Dolph said:
surely that depends on the context? remember that compensation is effectively punishment of the taxpayer.

Compensation in this case is simply the reallocation as funds acquired through taxation.

It is not "punishment of the taxpayer" no matter how you twist it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Joe Smith sued "Company X" for selling him faulty goods (which exploded in his face, leaving 26 large shards of metal in his lower jaw) - would be shareholders of "Company X" be presumed to protected as they are innocent of the crime?.

Nitefly · 28 Jan 2013 at 20:48

Dolph said:
Whether the taxpayer as a collective can afford it is irrelevent. The principle of fairness demands that the same tests are applied to both parties before punishment is administered.

Of course it's relevant. The concept of burdens passing to deep pockets is abundant throughout the entire English legal system, from the wide ambit of vicarious liability through to Road Traffic Act insurers (insurance in absence of policy)

Angilion · 28 Jan 2013 at 22:35

Dolph said:
Whether the taxpayer as a collective can afford it is irrelevent. The principle of fairness demands that the same tests are applied to both parties before punishment is administered.

According to your own argument, the taxpayers as a collective are guilty by the same tests and should therefore be punished.

According to your own argument, the state has no money and therefore cannot own anything. It's all owned by taxpayers. Including, obviously, the courts and the entire criminal justice system. So taxpayers are responsible for the criminal justice system.

You do not seem to be applying the principle of fairness to your own position, which appears to be based solely on wanting to pay no tax.

Biohazard · 28 Jan 2013 at 22:39

He's been missing the point, or selectively administering it, for years.. in fact it is the founding basis for his politics.

estebanrey · 29 Jan 2013 at 00:20

George gets nothing for being falsely imprisoned for 8 years, yet the father of a convicted killer gets £20k because when the police went around to arrest his murderous son they were a bit noisy and scared his dog...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ben-kinsella-former-eastenders-actress-1559016

...which is also twice what the parents of his son's victim got for losing their child.

Any more evidence needed that the compensation system needs changing?

Dolph · 29 Jan 2013 at 07:21

elmarko1234 said:
Compensation in this case is simply the reallocation as funds acquired through taxation.

It is not "punishment of the taxpayer" no matter how you twist it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Joe Smith sued "Company X" for selling him faulty goods (which exploded in his face, leaving 26 large shards of metal in his lower jaw) - would be shareholders of "Company X" be presumed to protected as they are innocent of the crime?.

The comparison of taxpayers to shareholders is invalid, shareholders have a choice about their involvement in the process, taxpayers do not. holding taxpayers responsible is more akin to holding the owner of a stolen car responsible for the crime committed with it.

Nitefly said:
Of course it's relevant. The concept of burdens passing to deep pockets is abundant throughout the entire English legal system, from the wide ambit of vicarious liability through to Road Traffic Act insurers (insurance in absence of policy)

Appeal to tradition, just because something is already done has no bearing on whether it is right or fair.

Angilion said:
According to your own argument, the taxpayers as a collective are guilty by the same tests and should therefore be punished.

According to your own argument, the state has no money and therefore cannot own anything. It's all owned by taxpayers. Including, obviously, the courts and the entire criminal justice system. So taxpayers are responsible for the criminal justice system.

You do not seem to be applying the principle of fairness to your own position, which appears to be based solely on wanting to pay no tax.

they are only being subject to the same test if you apply the supreme court test as to whether there is reasonable doubt about the guilt of the state...

it is not a fair test that applies a beyond reasonable doubt test to one party and not the other.