3 ms·

I would say victims of erroneous policing. No compensation is due if the person who suffered the loss is convicted, or the person who was convicted had ongoing

I would say victims of erroneous policing. No compensation is due if the person who suffered the loss is convicted, or the person who was convicted had ongoing permission to access whatever is involved even if they didn't own it. But I would apply this to all such victims. You spend a night in jail and are not convicted, you are owed some statutory compensation which I think should at a minimum be your annual earned income/365.

skopje 1y ago
>> I would say victims of erroneous policing. No compensation is due if the person who suffered the loss is convicted Call me crazy, but committing a crime doesn't mean you potentially forfeit everything you own, implicitly.
mindslight 1y ago
> No compensation is due if the person who suffered the loss is convicted I already included how I propose this is handled - explicit law outlining that the liability falls to someone convicted of a crime. > or the person who was convicted had ongoing permission to access whatever is involved I don't see why this needs to be an exception, and also if it was an exception why it wouldn't just form another avenue of unaccountable abuse (eg imagine roommates. Let's say the police bust up a whole apartment for fun - the innocent roommates really should be getting compensated for that (they're innocent, remember?), and if that damage was necessary to effect the arrest/search, the govt can then recover from the criminal.