If someone was found guilty but is truly innocent....?

Question

If someone is found guilty but later are found to be innocent do they get any compensation if they had to serve time? Do they have the right to sue? Thanks...

Also is there a name for this?

Lets say someone was locked up for 3 years... How much could he get assuming if you can sue.

Answer 1

It it can be shown that the prosecution made a careless mistake (negligence), or worse -- yes...

If the prosecution acted in good faith, and the evidence was simply sufficient to convict without anyone doing wrong -- generally, no, though some states will compensate out of a desire to try and do the right thing.

Answer 2

I doubt that just compensation takes place, as the system will try to defend and make excuses for itself. Heck, most of the time they don't even want to admit to their mistake and want to keep the person incarcerated, nevertheless. They usually have a very bad atittude, in my opinion.

If I were in charge, I would hold judges, attorneys and jurors accountable. Jurors are often selected based upon their stupidity and ignorance, with those having an education about the law weeded out by crafty lawyers. It's the same mentality by which Democrats seek their voter base - not targeting people with sense and values.

How can you have a just system like this? Also, Feminist Jurisprudence is now in effect, so that if you're of the male gender, you're less likely to receive a fair trial, if you even receive one at all before being determined guilty.

Answer 3

There have been numerous cases where this has happened and financial compensation was given. Ask your attorney (not the one who allowed you to be incarcerated but a better one). Most attorneys would jump at a case where monetary compensation is a possibility. As for suing...who would you sue, the judge, a jury, the state? I don't think you can sue when based on evidence(?), you were believed to be guilty. You can't sue the process...

Answer 4

Anyone can sue anyone at anytime. But, that person would be basically sueing the government. And, they would have to show that the wrongful conviction was done with malice. If all evidence show the person to be guilty, but later, new evidence is found showing their innocence, then there is no malice. That makes it pretty hard to sue. Might as well just be happy to be free again.

Answer 5

In some cases, a person found innocent after serving some time may be compensated for their imprisonment. The newly freed person would have to show evidence that they were wrongly accused and imprisoned. They would have to sue the state or legal authority that convicted them.

Answer 6

I think everyone (taxpayers, victims, and prisoners) would be better off if prisoners had an opportunity to apply for jobs in prisons that operate as businesses and make enough revenue to be self-financing, pay taxes, and contribute to victims' compensation funds. The profit making prisons would have to offer a better environment for prisoners to attract applicants, and would be able to return unproductive prisoners to less desirable tax-financed prisons.

If a prisoner were to be found innocent he/she would be entitled to whatever victims' compensation funds his/her work produced.

Judges, juries and prosecuters should only be punished for misconduct or negligence in their duties, not for making an honest mistake. If jurors were held liable for believing the wrong side in a trial, no one would be willing to serve on a jury and/or a lot of guilty people would go free due to jurors fearing a law suit.

Answer 7

No there is not, you can not sue the system. Is there any compensation for someone who is found innocent of murder, then goes out and is found guilty of this murder, and he did kill the other person is there any compensation for the second murder victim's family?

Answer 8

that isn't any longer sexual harassment, that is sexual attack, that is extra extreme and is very the comparable concern as rape. i think of that is impossible to tell whether Roethlisberger is a rapist, a minimum of based on the information that has been made public. Alleged rapes are continuously extremely annoying to inspect for glaring motives. Roethlisberger sounds like form of a sleazy guy, and that i'm specific he has women chasing after him who're only as sleazy, if no longer worse, so i can't % who to have faith. What i'm specific of is that regulation enforcement needs to inspect this very, very heavily because Roethlisberger could be a serial rapist. And Roethlisberger, while you're harmless and in case you have only been accused of rape, putting your self in a topic to get accused back is an exceedingly dumb flow.