6 ms·

I can't fathom Missouri getting away with imprisoning someone for 22 years and not paying him any compensation. An entire life down the drain due to incompetenc

by Knufen 7y ago

I can't fathom Missouri getting away with imprisoning someone for 22 years and not paying him any compensation. An entire life down the drain due to incompetence.

Ligrev 7y ago
A while ago I was thinking the same about compensation but then someone pointed out that if you were eligible for one, they would have incentive to not let you go. It would be cheaper for everyone to just keep you unfairly.
- kortilla 7y ago
  That doesn’t pass the smell test. It’s not like judges/juries pay out of their own pockets.
  - rndgermandude 7y ago
    They might not pay it out of the pocket, but they may pay with their jobs one way or another: Elected judges and prosecutors may lose elections when the electorate hears they shell out huge compensations, especially to people the electorate is not really convinced are innocent (because unlike the judges, who were at the trial obviously, the electorate learned only a tiny fraction of information about a case from more or less reliable media sources at best, and outright rumors and gossip at worst). Appointed judges are still appointed by somebody, and that somebody is a (group of) politician(s). These politicians have the same issues as the elected judges and prosecutors, and may avoid this (or even retaliate) by not appointing judges (to higher circuits) that are perceived to be risky in this regard, effectively killing the careers of these judges. So if you want to become an appointed judge, you still better pay close attention to the political scene and play ball.
- nullc 7y ago
  This wouldn't be true if the payout were less than the ongoing cost of incarceration.
  - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
    I'm sure it's a few levels more complex than that though; the ongoing cost of incarceration might for example include paying for jobs and services and often is a big part of the county or town economy.
- emilsedgh 7y ago
  It's not like the judges and the cops are paying out of their pocket?
- Narkov 7y ago
  > [...] they would have incentive to not let you go This is where separation of powers is important. A judiciary shouldn't care that the executive branch is on the hook for compensation.
  - ip26 7y ago
    Except, the executive branch appoints judges.
    - lzol 7y ago
      This is why Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. At least in theory, they'll carry out their job impartially because they don't have to run for re-election. They'll hold their position long past when the current administration so any conflict of interest should be mitigated over time. Directly electing judges has its own set of problems. I'm not trying to argue for one way over the other, just pointing out that the executive branch appointing judges is not inherently wrong.
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  first off, given the context of having kept someone 22 years this sounds ridiculous. If they kept someone 2.2 years and then didn't compensate you could argue incentives to keep but after a certain amount of years it seems like there isn't any difference between what they actually are doing and how they would behave with incentive not to let you go. Aside from that there could be ways to structure compensations, for example a scheme where you get less compensation per year for short time, more compensation per year for longer time might make them want to let you go and cut their losses once they determine you were innocent.
- tehwebguy 7y ago
  They already fought tooth and nail to put him in prison and keep him there.
lrem 7y ago
How are these compensations in the US? I know in some European countries they're below minimal wage and don't care for any asset losses.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  A good number of states (~20ish) don't offer any compensation at all. Wisconsin's limit is $5k/year and $25k/total, which comes out to about 2% of the Federal hourly minimum wage in OP's case. You can sue, but that risks the result being $0.
  - mikeyouse 7y ago
    You'd have to sue on contingency too which lops 30% off the top of any settlement as well.
ceejayoz 7y ago
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540903038/u-s-citizen-held-by-immigration-for-3-years-denied-compensation-by-appeals-court https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540903038... > Watson was correct all along: He was a U.S. citizen. After he was released, he filed a complaint. Last year, a district judge in New York awarded him $82,500 in damages, citing "regrettable failures of the government." > On Monday, an appeals court ruled that Watson, now 32, is not eligible for any of that money — because while his case is "disturbing," the statute of limitations actually expired while he was still in ICE custody without a lawyer. We have a bizarre system.
- quasse 7y ago
  Bizarre doesn't seem like the right word here. Evil, maybe. > The two-year statute of limitations on his "false imprisonment" started ticking when Watson first went before a judge, the majority said. That meant it expired while he was still in ICE custody, without a lawyer. A perfect example of bureaucracy and "the rules" used for evil.

by Knufen 7y ago

I can't fathom Missouri getting away with imprisoning someone for 22 years and not paying him any compensation. An entire life down the drain due to incompetence.

Ligrev 7y ago

A while ago I was thinking the same about compensation but then someone pointed out that if you were eligible for one, they would have incentive to not let you go. It would be cheaper for everyone to just keep you unfairly.

kortilla 7y ago
That doesn’t pass the smell test. It’s not like judges/juries pay out of their own pockets.
- rndgermandude 7y ago
  They might not pay it out of the pocket, but they may pay with their jobs one way or another: Elected judges and prosecutors may lose elections when the electorate hears they shell out huge compensations, especially to people the electorate is not really convinced are innocent (because unlike the judges, who were at the trial obviously, the electorate learned only a tiny fraction of information about a case from more or less reliable media sources at best, and outright rumors and gossip at worst). Appointed judges are still appointed by somebody, and that somebody is a (group of) politician(s). These politicians have the same issues as the elected judges and prosecutors, and may avoid this (or even retaliate) by not appointing judges (to higher circuits) that are perceived to be risky in this regard, effectively killing the careers of these judges. So if you want to become an appointed judge, you still better pay close attention to the political scene and play ball.
nullc 7y ago
This wouldn't be true if the payout were less than the ongoing cost of incarceration.
- CathedralBorrow 7y ago
  I'm sure it's a few levels more complex than that though; the ongoing cost of incarceration might for example include paying for jobs and services and often is a big part of the county or town economy.
emilsedgh 7y ago
It's not like the judges and the cops are paying out of their pocket?
Narkov 7y ago
> [...] they would have incentive to not let you go This is where separation of powers is important. A judiciary shouldn't care that the executive branch is on the hook for compensation.
- ip26 7y ago
  Except, the executive branch appoints judges.
  - lzol 7y ago
    This is why Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. At least in theory, they'll carry out their job impartially because they don't have to run for re-election. They'll hold their position long past when the current administration so any conflict of interest should be mitigated over time. Directly electing judges has its own set of problems. I'm not trying to argue for one way over the other, just pointing out that the executive branch appointing judges is not inherently wrong.
bryanrasmussen 7y ago
first off, given the context of having kept someone 22 years this sounds ridiculous. If they kept someone 2.2 years and then didn't compensate you could argue incentives to keep but after a certain amount of years it seems like there isn't any difference between what they actually are doing and how they would behave with incentive not to let you go. Aside from that there could be ways to structure compensations, for example a scheme where you get less compensation per year for short time, more compensation per year for longer time might make them want to let you go and cut their losses once they determine you were innocent.
tehwebguy 7y ago
They already fought tooth and nail to put him in prison and keep him there.

lrem 7y ago

How are these compensations in the US? I know in some European countries they're below minimal wage and don't care for any asset losses.

ceejayoz 7y ago
A good number of states (~20ish) don't offer any compensation at all. Wisconsin's limit is $5k/year and $25k/total, which comes out to about 2% of the Federal hourly minimum wage in OP's case. You can sue, but that risks the result being $0.
- mikeyouse 7y ago
  You'd have to sue on contingency too which lops 30% off the top of any settlement as well.

ceejayoz 7y ago

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540903038/u-s-citizen-held-by-immigration-for-3-years-denied-compensation-by-appeals-court https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540903038... > Watson was correct all along: He was a U.S. citizen. After he was released, he filed a complaint. Last year, a district judge in New York awarded him $82,500 in damages, citing "regrettable failures of the government." > On Monday, an appeals court ruled that Watson, now 32, is not eligible for any of that money — because while his case is "disturbing," the statute of limitations actually expired while he was still in ICE custody without a lawyer. We have a bizarre system.

quasse 7y ago
Bizarre doesn't seem like the right word here. Evil, maybe. > The two-year statute of limitations on his "false imprisonment" started ticking when Watson first went before a judge, the majority said. That meant it expired while he was still in ICE custody, without a lawyer. A perfect example of bureaucracy and "the rules" used for evil.