If I did the time, can I do the crime?

[lawtonfogle]

So, this is the basic question. If you were found guilty, served the time, and after serving all the time, 'new evidence' or some such thing found you innocent of the crime, should you get a 'free pass' to commit that crime. Basically, if you believe that the price of committing the crime is paying the time, then if you paid the time, society holds a debt of giving you a 'free' crime.

And if not, should some form of compensation be given.

Now, if we are talking tax evasion here, I think some may agree the guy in question who never actually evaded his taxes (or even tried to) should be awarded some monetary compensation, but if we were talking rape, I would think that none here should think that the guy should get a free rape... though many will think that the person who charged him with raping her should have some penalty if it wasn't an honest mistake on her part.

Exactly how should we reimburse those who have been betrayed by society.

I remember as a child if my parents ever punished me for something I didn't do, I would go and do just that, and more. Maybe I was slightly messed up in my view, but I would feel as if my parents had thus committed a wrong and that I should go and punish them anyway possible. I think this is something like that, except between adult and society, instead of child and parents.

 

[God-free]

That old saying "Two wrongs don't make a right" comes to mind. Sure, if someone is punished for something they did not do, then they deserve to be compensated somehow. But we don't always get what we deserve. To go out and do the crime you've already paid for would result in yet another punishment for you. So, you'd have to decide if you're willing to risk receiving more punishment or if it's better to just get on with your life.

 

[lawtonfogle]

That old saying "Two wrongs don't make a right" comes to mind. Sure, if someone is punished for something they did not do, then they deserve to be compensated somehow. But we don't always get what we deserve. To go out and do the crime you've already paid for would result in yet another punishment for you. So, you'd have to decide if you're willing to risk receiving more punishment or if it's better to just get on with your life.

You would be correct if this was from the POV of the one who did the time, but I'm saying lets look at it from the POV of society.

If they were locked up for 1000 hours, why not give them minimum wage pay for every one of those hours (and maybe more the higher educated you get, as education has a positive correlation with pay)? Any property taken from them should be given back, or else other property should be given to them if the previous property was sold (no need to punish the buyer of the property who didn't have a hand in it, unless he had a hand in it).

And how about another question. If you destroy someones life, especially if you destroy their and their family's lives, can you personally blame that person for holding a grudge against society, or at least the system that did that to them?

 

[FaithLikeARock]

I don't think you should get a chance to DO the crime.

I think you should get compensated through money or getting your items back or whatever suits the persons fancy that doesn't invade on the rights of others.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I don't think you should get a chance to DO the crime.

I think you should get compensated through money or getting your items back or whatever suits the persons fancy that doesn't invade on the rights of others.

But who does that money come from? If your given land back, who loses it? If you get back an heirloom, what of the one that bought it and has had it for 15+ years? How do you pay for a destroyed family? What about the child who was planning on going to college, but school problems caused by his father being a convicted rapist led to his dropping out? Even if we had a magic vault of money to pay for it, exactly how much money is a destroyed life worth?

 

[PetersKeys]

So, this is the basic question. If you were found guilty, served the time, and after serving all the time, 'new evidence' or some such thing found you innocent of the crime, should you get a 'free pass' to commit that crime. Basically, if you believe that the price of committing the crime is paying the time, then if you paid the time, society holds a debt of giving you a 'free' crime.

And if not, should some form of compensation be given.

Now, if we are talking tax evasion here, I think some may agree the guy in question who never actually evaded his taxes (or even tried to) should be awarded some monetary compensation, but if we were talking rape, I would think that none here should think that the guy should get a free rape... though many will think that the person who charged him with raping her should have some penalty if it wasn't an honest mistake on her part.

Exactly how should we reimburse those who have been betrayed by society.

I remember as a child if my parents ever punished me for something I didn't do, I would go and do just that, and more. Maybe I was slightly messed up in my view, but I would feel as if my parents had thus committed a wrong and that I should go and punish them anyway possible. I think this is something like that, except between adult and society, instead of child and parents.

There is nothing that can turn back the time. The best thing would be a public apology by the Mayor and county, and a large sum money settlement(few million at least for life lost, personal hardship and agony). If it was fake rape charge then the woman should be charged with incrimination , pay an extreme amount of court costs and prison time. I don't think it should just be minimum wage for the time spent, because you have to consider the other factors such as the personal agony of being in prison. There are plenty of foreclosures and empty lands that the state/county owns that can be awarded to the person

 

[cantata]

<shuffles in>

Don't forget that men can be raped, and falsely claim to have been raped, as well.

<shuffles out again>

 

[wanderingone]

Doing the crime would victimize an additional person, if the wrong person is convicted for a crime the crime still happened, if the crime never occurred the person who falsely reported should be charged.

Doing the crime would not return anything to the falsely accused.

You are correct that there is not monetary compensation for the damage done to the falsely accused and their loved ones, but I'll bet most of us could come up with some amount that would make catching up on that which was lost a little easier.

And the money comes from the taxpayers, just like the money to convict wrongly came from us.

 

[Isambard]

As far as I know, folks are already given compensation for serving time for crimes they didnt commit, or was that only those who were falsely convicted of murder? Anyways, I think its much easier to sue the institution/ppl that screwed you.

 

[TooCurious]

I wouldn't say that the wrongly-convicted person should be given a free pass to commit the crime of which he was convicted, but I would agree that he should be given a significant financial compensation for his time served, loss of property, damage to reputation, emotional suffering, separation from family, etc. Admittedly, it can be hard to attach a price to some of these things, but it's been done before in civil suits, and even if the money doesn't make up for the lost time completely, it can help with rebuilding.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

But who does that money come from? If your given land back, who loses it? If you get back an heirloom, what of the one that bought it and has had it for 15+ years? How do you pay for a destroyed family? What about the child who was planning on going to college, but school problems caused by his father being a convicted rapist led to his dropping out? Even if we had a magic vault of money to pay for it, exactly how much money is a destroyed life worth?

I would think the government would just throw the money at you and tell you never to speak of it again.

 

[stan1980]

Being locked up for a crime you didn't commit would probably be my worst nightmare. Presumably, for this to happen, someone or some people are going to have to stand up in court and give false evidence. If this ever happened to me, I hate to admit it, but I would almost definitely spend every minute in prison plotting the perfect murder for when I get released.

 

[God-free]

Being locked up for a crime you didn't commit would probably be my worst nightmare. Presumably, for this to happen, someone or some people are going to have to stand up in court and give false evidence. If this ever happened to me, I hate to admit it, but I would almost definitely spend every minute in prison plotting the perfect murder for when I get released.

I could understand your anger in being falsely imprisoned. But, let's see if you'd still plot that murder under different circumstances.

Let's say, a woman whom you know is raped. She never saw her attackers face and there is no usable DNA available to identify her attacker. There is lots of other evidence that seems to point to you. You are tried and convicted on that other evidence. Who, if anyone, do you plot to get even with?

EDIT: I had second thoughts about posting this scenario (don't want to go off topic) but I can't figure out how to delete it.

 

[stan1980]

I could understand your anger in being falsely imprisoned. But, let's see if you'd still plot that murder under different circumstances.

Let's say, a woman whom you know is raped. She never saw her attackers face and there is no usable DNA available to identify her attacker. There is lots of other evidence that seems to point to you. You are tried and convicted on that other evidence. Who, if anyone, do you plot to get even with?

It would be very rare I think to get locked up on the basis of circumstantial evidence, especially for something like rape. Obviously, if that was to happen, and no one had actually pointed the finger at me and given false evidence, I'd still be angry, but I wouldn't have anyone to get "even" with.

 

[lawtonfogle]

<shuffles in>

Don't forget that men can be raped, and falsely claim to have been raped, as well.

<shuffles out again>

<yanks back in>
Only by other men though, being that rape, as compared to sexual assault, requires penetration using a body part.
<allows to leave>

 

[lawtonfogle]

I could understand your anger in being falsely imprisoned. But, let's see if you'd still plot that murder under different circumstances.

Let's say, a woman whom you know is raped. She never saw her attackers face and there is no usable DNA available to identify her attacker. There is lots of other evidence that seems to point to you. You are tried and convicted on that other evidence. Who, if anyone, do you plot to get even with?

EDIT: I had second thoughts about posting this scenario (don't want to go off topic) but I can't figure out how to delete it.

The jury? Without anyone lying, then at best they had circumstance evidence, and the jury convicted someone they 'felt' was guilty even if the evidence didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were. Then again, those people are probably long gone... so how about society in general.

 

[cantata]

<yanks back in>
Only by other men though, being that rape, as compared to sexual assault, requires penetration using a body part.
<allows to leave>

Almost correct. Attitudes are changing. Women have been convicted of rape: Clare Marsh, in 2001, was convicted of rape of a 37-year-old woman because she participated in a sex attack during which the woman was raped repeatedly, and a woman in Norway was convicted of orally raping a sleeping man in 2005. Women are also, of course, legally capable of statutory rape in most places.

Enough with the yanking! I've got delicate skin.

 

[jayem]

Many, if not most states now do have funds to compensate those wrongly convicted of crimes. It's become necessary due to people being exonerated by increasing use of forensic DNA testing. Monetary compensation obviously isn't perfect, but it's the best a civil society can do.

And if a case can be made that a conviction was caused by willfull police or prosecutorial misconduct, those individuals can be indicted criminally.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Almost correct. Attitudes are changing. Women have been convicted of rape: Clare Marsh, in 2001, was convicted of rape of a 37-year-old woman because she participated in a sex attack during which the woman was raped repeatedly, and a woman in Norway was convicted of orally raping a sleeping man in 2005. Women are also, of course, legally capable of statutory rape in most places.

Enough with the yanking! I've got delicate skin.

The FDA has yet to announce any possible harm that digital yanking may cause, so wait for that research to come out before you start shouting at me... wait, did I just say to listen to the FDA?

Interesting use of rape... anyways, most don't consider stat rape rape (or at least they don't when it is a 16 year old with an 18 year old... doc 10 off of either age and you got a blood thirsty audience though, so...)

Also, orally raping is a term I have never before heard. Didn't know it was possible... well, I guess the standards of rape have been changing.

 

[God-free]

<yanks back in>
Only by other men though, being that rape, as compared to sexual assault, requires penetration using a body part.
<allows to leave>

If I'm not mistaken, penetration using a body part or any foreign object, without consent, is considered rape. So, it is possible to rape a person regardless of gender.