3 ms·
>"a real financial burden on the state for making these kinds of errors" I agree with everything in your post except this; the state does not care whether it i
by nickff 11y ago
>"a real financial burden on the state for making these kinds of errors"
I agree with everything in your post except this; the state does not care whether it is burdened or not, it simply taxes the citizenry to cover these expenses. At least a portion of this compensation should come from the responsible parties if this type of problem is to be discouraged. Imagine that you are a prosecutor or police officer set on obtaining a conviction for moral, corruption, or career reasons; will the possibility of future costs to the state give you any pause, or make you reconsider your actions?
- ncallaway 11y agoThese numbers need to be tied directly to the prosecutor who put them in jail. I am not willing to go so far as to say the prosecutor needs to pay for the cost, but it should absolutely be a part of their record. I think it would be acceptable to come out of the prosecuting office's budget. They are a part of a prosecutors performance evaluation. So, when a prosecutor says: "I put away 300 people, with a 97% conviction rate" their supervisor can say: "Yes, but you also cost this office $250,000 with your 2 wrongful convictions. We're passing on you and giving the promotion to Janice who put away 260 people on a 95% conviction rate, but only cost the office $10,000."
- thatcat 11y agoNot if the money comes from the department in which they work. If every fuck up by their co workers could potentially ruin their ability to prosecute anyone at all then they'd probably try a bit harder not to fuck up so much.