• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes?

Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes?


  • Total voters
    34
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

Well, let me see, if there's not enough evidence to convict you of a crime, does that mean you should have been tried in the first place? Are we all suspects of a crime until proven not guilty?

Or it could mean that the defense lawyer was better than the DA lawyer. Or it could be that a crucial witness changed their mind about testifying. Or it could be any of a number of things. Your last sentence is a huge strawman and very cheap.
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

And this massive corruption is where?

Seriously, there is no guarantee in the constitution that the occasional mistake might not happen. It will. It sucks, but that is just the way it is, and it is a whole lot better than making random changes to a working system.

Watch the movie which is based on a true story. We're talking about the entire New York police department during the 50s, 60s, and 70s. You think things have changed radically? In my little town, there's plenty of small and medium-size police corruption to fill the department. In LA, don't get me started.
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

What a mature reply? I'm out of here. With your level of maturity I'm assuming you will run afoul of the law again.

I usually remain very mature until an opponent says something like I have a "hard on" for the cops. I suppose since his lean was the same as yours, his erection statement was mature while my response (which was geared towards his low level of maturity, I won't deny) was not.
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

Watch the movie which is based on a true story. We're talking about the entire New York police department during the 50s, 60s, and 70s. You think things have changed radically? In my little town, there's plenty of small and medium-size police corruption to fill the department. In LA, don't get me started.

So you are claiming the whole police system is corrupt? A large portion of it?
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

No, it would just make prosecutorial misconduct more, and more prevalent because there would even be more pressure on them to get a conviction. This would undermine our whole court system.

Perhaps we should start repealing unnecessary victimless crimes in order to curb that problem.
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

Perhaps we should start repealing unnecessary victimless crimes in order to curb that problem.

It's not that, we need to stop equating prosecutorial success with the amount of convictions a prosecutor gets.
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

Or it could mean that the defense lawyer was better than the DA lawyer. Or it could be that a crucial witness changed their mind about testifying. Or it could be any of a number of things. Your last sentence is a huge strawman and very cheap.

The burden of evidence NEVER is on the defense, always on the prosecution. If there's not enough evidence to begin with, there should never have been a charge. Take my charge for instance. I'm prosecuted for being under the influence of a controlled substance. Given that I'm completely innocent of the crime, why is the D.A. moving forward with the charge? Would you like me to show you the toxicology report?
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

In general, would you agree with a new law that requires individual police officers to pay, out of their own pockets, all costs that accrue from a false or wrongfully charged crime?
Only if there's some sort of accompanying misconduct, negligence or some such on the part of the officer. But in general, no.
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

The burden of evidence NEVER is on the defense, always on the prosecution. If there's not enough evidence to begin with, there should never have been a charge. Take my charge for instance. I'm prosecuted for being under the influence of a controlled substance. Given that I'm completely innocent of the crime, why is the D.A. moving forward with the charge? Would you like me to show you the toxicology report?

I have no clue about your case, nor does one case make a pattern of abuse or corruption. Now please do me a favor, reread the post you responded to, and actually respond to what I wrote. Your response was a total nonsequitor.
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

So you are claiming the whole police system is corrupt? A large portion of it?

A large portion. The big cities and the rural townships. What's left? Of course, we're not El Salvador, but I don't intend to condone our corruption because some police somewhere else in the world is more corrupt than we are.
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

A large portion. The big cities and the rural townships. What's left? Of course, we're not El Salvador, but I don't intend to condone our corruption because some police somewhere else in the world is more corrupt than we are.

And you have some sort of evidence to back this up?
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

It's not that, we need to stop equating prosecutorial success with the amount of convictions a prosecutor gets.

Then what defines success for the prosecution?
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

Then what defines success for the prosecution?

Doing their job, and getting a conviction at all cost isn't their job.
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

Or it could mean that the defense lawyer was better than the DA lawyer. Or it could be that a crucial witness changed their mind about testifying. Or it could be any of a number of things. Your last sentence is a huge strawman and very cheap.

Your theories regarding success of one lawyer over another and the circumstances surrounding a case are irrelevant. This is about the life of a citizen and their reputation which remains on the line. Our judicial system should never be based on how many people we can nab on the streets and how many we can lock up.
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

Doing their job, and getting a conviction at all cost isn't their job.

Their job is to represent the government or "the people" and to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty of a crime. If they don't, fine. The case is settled, but it doesn't negate the fact that the suspect could have possibly faced serious consequences and difficult financial straits as a result of the case, which was proven to be a waste of time and money of everyone involved.
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

And you have some sort of evidence to back this up?

Are you kidding? Haven't you read anything about the corruption of big city police departments, especially NYC and LA?
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

Their job is to represent the government or "the people" and to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty of a crime. If they don't, fine. The case is settled, but it doesn't negate the fact that the suspect could have possibly faced serious consequences and difficult financial straits as a result of the case, which was proven to be a waste of time and money of everyone involved.

But that doesn't mean that the courts(which are paid by our taxes, so in essence we would still be footing this bill) should pay because someone was found not guilty.
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

But that doesn't mean that the courts(which are paid by our taxes, so in essence we would still be footing this bill) should pay because someone was found not guilty.

If it means the person in question felt severe damages as a result of their case, yes it should. If the court can issue punitive damages for private parties harming each other, certainly they can do it for the public harming a private party. After all, the convicts pay for their crimes, why shouldn't the court pay for its mistakes?
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

If it means the person in question felt severe damages as a result of their case, yes it should. If the court can issue punitive damages for private parties harming each other, certainly they can do it for the public harming a private party. After all, the convicts pay for their crimes, why shouldn't the court pay for its mistakes?

Is finding someone not guilty a mistake by the court though? A trial is the prosecutions change to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty, if they can't do that, then our system has worked.
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

Well, let me see, if there's not enough evidence to convict you of a crime, does that mean you should have been tried in the first place? Are we all suspects of a crime until proven not guilty?

Thanks. Your idiotic and ridiculous suggestion is as insane as I thought it was. My vote would be no. Potentially having substantial financial harm done to an officer because a Jury doesn't convict would make law enforcement essentially paralyzed from acting. This is one of the most retarded and victim mentality focused ideas I've seen ever on these forums.
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

The theory: Evidence is gathered, a warrant is issued upon probable cause; you are arrested, held in jail for a short while until you are tried by a jury of your peers and found guilty or not guilty.

The reality: Arrests are more commonly made because the subject talks and gives away something incriminating, or has incriminating evidence on his person or in his home, or is ratted out by someone. Not a lot of Columbo or Murder, She Wrote detective work involved (nor CSI in most cases). Many get out on bond. Most use a public "defender" and plead guilty in return for a reduced sentence... that's assuming some pre-trial intervention doesn't occur resulting in probation or whatever. If you insist on a jury trial, it will probably take at least 1 year, perhaps 2 or 3, to go to court. If you can't get out on bond, oh well you sit in jail. ("Speedy" trial? Define speedy...)

If you insist on a jury trial, the solicitor will be most reluctant to pursue one (they are expensive and very time consuming, and we don't have nearly enough courts to try all cases if everyone insisted on a jury trial), unless he is very nearly certain he can get a conviction. Now, once a while he will misjudge it and someone will walk, but most jury trials do end in conviction, and in punishment for making them go to all that bother they will probably give you a stiff sentence, like the maximum.

The reality is that not many REALLY INNOCENT people reach the point of a jury trial. Some, yes... but the percentage is certainly small.

If you actually go through all that and are found not guilty, I can see making the State reimburse you for lost time/earnings while in jail, legal fees and so forth. After all, a "speedy trial" these days is a YEAR OR TWO. Can you imagine knowing that you're innocent and sitting in jail for two years because you were denied bond? Pretty horrible idea. Imagine you have small children while all this is going on; imagine your mortgage is foreclosed while you're not earning.

As for making cops pay for any kind of erroneous arrest out of their pockets.... basically you'd end up with cops refusing to arrest anybody without a signed confession and a bloody murder weapon AND a witness. Most cops don't make a lot of money and one such erroneous arrest would pretty much wipe them out financially. If you want anarchy and chaos by all means go ahead....
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

If you insist on a jury trial, the solicitor will be most reluctant to pursue one (they are expensive and very time consuming, and we don't have nearly enough courts to try all cases if everyone insisted on a jury trial), unless he is very nearly certain he can get a conviction. Now, once a while he will misjudge it and someone will walk, but most jury trials do end in conviction, and in punishment for making them go to all that bother they will probably give you a stiff sentence, like the maximum.

The reality is that not many REALLY INNOCENT people reach the point of a jury trial. Some, yes... but the percentage is certainly small.

Exactly.

If you actually go through all that and are found not guilty, I can see making the State reimburse you for lost time/earnings while in jail, legal fees and so forth. After all, a "speedy trial" these days is a YEAR OR TWO. Can you imagine knowing that you're innocent and sitting in jail for two years because you were denied bond? Pretty horrible idea. Imagine you have small children while all this is going on; imagine your mortgage is foreclosed while you're not earning.

As for making cops pay for any kind of erroneous arrest out of their pockets.... basically you'd end up with cops refusing to arrest anybody without a signed confession and a bloody murder weapon AND a witness. Most cops don't make a lot of money and one such erroneous arrest would pretty much wipe them out financially. If you want anarchy and chaos by all means go ahead....

Almost exactly. ;)
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

Please give us an example of a wrongful arrest.

Remarkably enough I have come very close to being wrongfully arrested on several occasions.

Twice involved mistaken identity. In one case the witness recanted when he saw me close up. In the other case the cops let me go when they could not establish that I was the person for whom a felony warrant existed (guy with the same name except for middle).

The other case was a bit more complex.... it involved a State Trooper who didn't know the law as well as he thought he did. I was in the right.... but if I'd pushed the matter on the side of the road I might have gone to jail. Instead I let him have his way and called the State AG when I got home and got the matter handled.

That's three times I nearly suffered a wrongful arrest... despite being an ex-cop.... so it's a good bet that it happens more often than some might like to think.

Now the truth of the matter? I'm pretty darn sure (from prior experience) that 96-98% of the people who are arrested and charged (and either tried or cop a plea) are far from innocent. But I think whenever we DO come up with one that is REALLY AND ACTUALLY INNOCENT (demonstrably so), that he ought to be compensated fully for any losses pertaining to his incarceration and trial. I'm convinced that wouldn't happen very often.
 
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

Ridiculous. Dozens of people are involved in investigating crimes, and the police don't even have a say on whether those arrested will actually be prosecuted. It's the job of the police to investigate, interrogate witnesses, follow up on alibies, book and document crime scenes and evidence. It's up to the District Attorney who will be prosecuted and for which offenses. It's then up to the judge and jury to determine the guilt or innocense, and pronouce sentence.

Somebody has a hard-on for cops, methinks. :2razz:
 
Last edited:
Re: Should individual police officers pay out-of-pocket for wrongfully charged crimes

Remarkably enough I have come very close to being wrongfully arrested on several occasions. Twice involved mistaken identity. In one case the witness recanted when he saw me close up. In the other case the cops let me go when they could not establish that I was the person for whom a felony warrant existed (guy with the same name except for middle). The other case was a bit more complex.... it involved a State Trooper who didn't know the law as well as he thought he did. I was in the right.... but if I'd pushed the matter on the side of the road I might have gone to jail. Instead I let him have his way and called the State AG when I got home and got the matter handled.

Still, nearly isn't quite the same thing. And...had you been arrested on any one of those Goshin, the police officer wasn't guilty of malfeasance or intentional misconduct. Had you been arrested, while I love you dearly, ;) I'm not at all sure you would be entitled to file a lawsuit and sue the police officers involved for negligence or false arrest. False arrest indicates no probable cause. They were, in each case it sounds like, doing their job.[/QUOTE]

That's three times I nearly suffered a wrongful arrest... despite being an ex-cop.... so it's a good bet that it happens more often than some might like to think.

I've been around the block and back. I've been drawn down on by a copper and told, "Just stand still, ma'am," asked to get out of the car and place my hands on the hood, been accused of drunk driving because I had a 7/11 coffee cup in my hand at 3 AM in the morning. In neither of these three cases was I arrested. Just a copper doing his job. Had I been taken down to the station, I wouldn't have been thinkin' of suing.....I'd have just been glad the misunderstanding was straightened out. ;)

Now the truth of the matter? I'm pretty darn sure (from prior experience) that 96-98% of the people who are arrested and charged (and either tried or cop a plea) are far from innocent. But I think whenever we DO come up with one that is REALLY AND ACTUALLY INNOCENT (demonstrably so), that he ought to be compensated fully for any losses pertaining to his incarceration and trial. I'm convinced that wouldn't happen very often.

I agree with you -- 96-98% of people who are charged are guilty -- whether they're found guilty in a court of law or plea down. As for being compensated for any losses? Nah, I'm just not there. Unless there's been some misconduct somewhere on the part of "the state."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom