If you were wrongly imprisoned, and then freed.....what would you want for compensation?

A house? A car? A 4 year paid all expenses paid college education? $100,000 to start over or more?

I have been thinking about this all day. I would want almost all of the above. I am not sure if I could get over all my anger and accept any of the help in the right way, or in a allotted amount of time. Counseling for a year or two (at least) would have to be on my list as well.

Well, hmmm.....
1. $100,000.00 for each year of false imprisonment plus and equal amount for pain and suffering, payable as a lump sum and due the day I was released. Tax free, of course.
2. Medical, dental, psychiatric, prescription coverage at 100% for life.
3. Complete reimbursement of all of my legal expenses stemming from the false charges and for any ongoing legal expenses due to the false imprisonment.
4. A public apology. In writing.
5. A full investigation into why this happened in the first place with charges brought against anyone found to have suppressed or falsified evidence against me or lied to convict me.

I'm basically going to reiterate some things already said, just maybe tweak some, but...

1. The public apology, definitely. In writing, but also on every telelvision news network there was with the DA that prosecuted.
2. Tax exemption for the rest of my life - I would have already paid enough.
3. The college and schooling is a great idea - to help get back on the feet.
4. Psychological help is also a good idea, also for the family.

I never thought about asking for a public apology - but you folks have a good point!!!

The public apology is probably the most important thing - after all, the wrongly imprisoned person's reputation has been totally trashed by the system and there is no way that it can ever be fully restored. An apology, in this instance, is only a very small step in that direction but a necessary one.

Sure, it should be on TV too but no one will remember that it was within 6 months or so. Having written copy means always having that formal apology letter on hand to pull out when needed.

Oh yes, the written copy is definitely the most important for "lasting time". I was thinking of the tv apology for the immediacy, so that the person can go out in public and go back to living in society immediately.

Yes definitely a public apology on TV and print is SO important. Watch The Crucible sometime (an amazing movie about the Salem Witch Trials). The value of someone's name is a key turning point in the movie - whether or not someone will "admit" to being a witch and thereby be labeled a witch for the rest of their life. The way things worked during the trials, is if you were accused as a witch, and you claimed you were innocent, you were killed. They figured you were lying. If you ACCEPTED the accusation and said YES you were a witch but you were now sorry - you were allowed to live. So people literally had to choose between being slain or lying and living with the burden of being thought of as a witch (who had reformed).

I would want each member of the jury and the DA to serve at least a year in prison that sent me there. A full year too no six months for good behavior and they would have to work on a chain gang.

I would want a great deal of money as well and tax free.

I agree with the college and schooling as well all being paid for.

Um...free cable television too. For life.

Hmmm....well....maybe the DA if exculpatory evidence had been withheld from the defense. But I don't see how the DA could be held personally liable if they acted in good faith.

Juries simply have to sort things out based on the evidence presented by both the defense and the DA and make the best decisions they can with the information they are given and must exclude any and all information they might have heard about the crime or the defendant that came from outside of formal court proceedings. I believe that most juries act in good faith and would not vote for a conviction unless they really thought the defendant guilty. Hard to jail someone for having the courage of their convictions. And think of how hard it would be to convict any criminals if the people on the jury felt that they could be jailed if they got it wrong.

Sure, juries get it wrong sometimes. Occasionally an innocent person is jailed. But more often the guilty party walks - look at the O.J. Simpson murder case.

Hmmm....well....maybe the DA if exculpatory evidence had been withheld from the defense. But I don't see how the DA could be held personally liable if they acted in good faith.

Juries simply have to sort things out based on the evidence presented by both the defense and the DA and make the best decisions they can with the information they are given and must exclude any and all information they might have heard about the crime or the defendant that came from outside of formal court proceedings. I believe that most juries act in good faith and would not vote for a conviction unless they really thought the defendant guilty. Hard to jail someone for having the courage of their convictions. And think of how hard it would be to convict any criminals if the people on the jury felt that they could be jailed if they got it wrong.

Sure, juries get it wrong sometimes. Occasionally an innocent person is jailed. But more often the guilty party walks - look at the O.J. Simpson murder case.....now there's a jury that ought to have been tossed in the slammer.

I think that jury, like so many others, was intimidated by the whole thing, not to mention the people involved.

Right I don't think you can blame the jury. They do the best they can do, they don't choose the evidence or testimony. It would really be based on if the lawyers knew of something that *would* clear him and chose to hide it ... or if there was evidence the police should have found but they didn't due to sloppy police work.

Ok, I guess that is all true. I didn't think about that stuff regarding the juries and the DA.

Besides evrybody else already took all of the good things for compensation.

Can I still have my free cable television for life?

Well I bet if you sold book rights you could certainly get that and much more!

I'd like to chime in on the jury aspect...

My mom once had to serve jury duty on a murder trial (they don't call it 1st degree here on GA, it's something like murder w/ malice - or something similar, but means the same thing).

She actually had a very hard decision finding the man guilty - although all evidence pointed directly at the man. But she is very anti-death penalty, and she knew that if the man were found guilty, that was the sentence the state would be asking for.

She did finally vote "guilty", but it was a hard decision for her - and it still bothers her.

So I don't think there are many juries that take lightly the decisions they have - whether the penalty is death or life imprisonment.

That's a good point, I'm sorry your mother had to go through that! I'm surprised they let her on the jury if she didn't believe in the death penalty, since that was one of the options on the table.