Crime Appeal Pay-outs To Cut By £5m

BillieTheBot

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4921230.stm

Not sure I agree with this, tbh - are the Government forgetting that people who have been wrongly imprisoned are victims too? :rolleyes: Particullary this:

Those who win their appeals at the first attempt will get no compensation.

Former Member

How can someone acquitted of an offence possibly be innocent?

I think the Tories sum it up right- it says exactly what this government think about civil liberties.

I actually think that those wronged by the state are far far more deserving of compensation than those wronged by individual people.

Angela Cannings was shoved in a cell for two years and called a baby killer. Under these proposals she will not get a penny for what happened to her. That is absolutely sickening.

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

Angela Cannings was shoved in a cell for two years and called a baby killer. Under these proposals she will not get a penny for what happened to her. That is absolutely sickening.

If you scroll a bit further down the page where all the comments are, there is someone who actually agrees that people like her shouldn't get a penny. I wonder if this person would agree if a female relative or friend of his was in the same situation... :rolleyes:

Former Member

All this to save £5 million?! There is more to this than the money which in real terms is a few pennies down the back of the governments sofa.

Its part of the large trend towards having to prove you are innocent.

Former Member

bongbudda wrote:

All this to save £5 million?

Well they need to find the money somewhere for the extra £800m they're pumping into the Iraq & Afghanistan war efforts... :rolleyes:

It is an absolute disgrace. The system was bad enough anyway. There is something very, very wrong with the fact that you might not be considered for parole if you aren't "sorry" for the crimes you are supposed to have commited. And apparently you cannot be sorry in the eyes of the system if you claim you are innocent.

How many people have rot in jail for 15, 20, 25 years because they were telling the truth and saying they were innocent?

Such people should be compensated millions of Pounds. And perhaps the money should partly come from the pockets of the prosecutors and the judge/jury that wrongly convicted them.

Former Member

<New Labour Mode ON>

Please stop asking questions. We would not have prosecuted them if they had not done something wrong. Since a crime was committed and someone was punished, in net terms justice was done. If this can actually be achieved by punishing the criminal who did the deed, then this is just a bonus and fortuitous circumstance, not a necessary condition of the justice system.

</End New Labour Mode>

Former Member

This is perverse. Under the statutory scheme, a man convicted of a series of sexual offences against children was awarded £10,000 because one of the offences was quashed, even when the other cases were upheld. This is clearly ridiculous. Yet Mr Clarke intends to keep this scheme (though capping it at £500,000), while removing the discretion to allow high levels of compensation to be paid to people who are locked away for years yet who are innocent - not on a technicality, but because they did not commit the crime.

article

Funnily enough I think when people are complaining about compensation its the first case they're complaining about, not the second.

Former Member

NQA wrote:

article

Funnily enough I think when people are complaining about compensation its the first case they're complaining about, not the second.

But that bloke should still get compensation, a wrongful conviction is a wrongful conviction - granted I'd rather he didnt get loads, but he should get some.

P.S - Flashy! He stands alone.

Former Member

bongbudda wrote:

But that bloke should still get compensation, a wrongful conviction is a wrongful conviction - granted I'd rather he didnt get loads, but he should get some.

P.S - Flashy! He stands alone.

I disagree. There should be payment if you're wrongly convicted through no fault of your own (eg you didn't lie to police to cover up your involvement in another crime). Compensation should cover the damage done to your family and social life whilst in jail, damage to your reputation and loss of earnings (including promotions you might have had). If you're in jail already for similar crimes already committed you not loosing any earnings, your reputation isn't going to be any further damaged and your family and social life is already circumscribed.

Its cases like this which makes people question the whole edifice of British justice and become cynical about more deserving cases.

Former Member

NQA wrote:

I disagree. There should be payment if you're wrongly convicted through no fault of your own (eg you didn't lie to police to cover up your involvement in another crime). Compensation should cover the damage done to your family and social life whilst in jail, damage to your reputation and loss of earnings (including promotions you might have had). If you're in jail already for similar crimes already committed you not loosing any earnings, your reputation isn't going to be any further damaged and your family and social life is already circumscribed.

Its cases like this which makes people question the whole edifice of British justice and become cynical about more deserving cases.

Yes, I can see your point, and in certain cases I agree. For example a sex offender who is convicted of 6 assaults but one case is false. But, I dont like the idea that just because you 'are in jail anyway' you shouldn't get compensation. If you are in prison for theft and rape and the rape charge is false then you should get a payout for example.