"innocent until proven guilty, but if not, _______"?

a friend mentioned this to me and brought an interesting thought we discussed:
the US's legal system follows the policy of "innocent until proven guilty" but should there be a widespread second part to the phrase that supports the citizen by reimbursing an inconvenience if proven innocent? monetary reimbursement or by other means possibly.

for example, if a police department had to hold somebody until they concluded them as innocent in a case, should the police be in debt to the citizen in some way, rather than just sending them home and saying "have a good day".
_______________________________

although it brings more red tape to the entire system, and might add more taxes, it forces law enforcement to be more accurate and certain with their work, while putting more of an importance on the citizens' attorneys.

the current system is very one-way, making it very easy for law enforcement to issue warrants and walk above everyone else. in police training academies, they teach on what red flags to look at, but do they teach to act accurately? it'd make law enforcement slightly more of a profession based on academia, like how lawyers must go to school for their line of work. it may very well cut down on police brutality itself entirely also.

fundamentally and morally, it may sound right, but the repurcussions of implementing it would be pretty crazy also. when someone is sued on grounds of liability, like if theyre barely touched, they are able to sue the opposing party for an unequal, outlandish amount. so how would reimbursing based on inconvenience be any different?
also, how would it affect criminal gangs?

discuss?

 

Good point that most people miss. The police certainly don't miss it. They use it as a tactic to stop people from expressing their opinion. Sure it's not illegal and they can't go to jail for it, but it's just so much hassle going through all that every time. I've heard of many activist operations and organizations that were completely stopped by this loophole.

 

You know I've always wondered that myself as I would vote yes they should pay the person back!

 

It is a great idea, but regardless of the rhetoric, the justice system is not about justice, but the mitigation of fear. If everyone were innocent until proven guilty there would be no suspicion. Suspicion is not to particular about who it falls on.

 

In civil cases in America I think this should be the case . In other words for non-criminal civil lawsuits . For instance If I sued John Doe's grocery store , for slipping on a grape while shopping at his store and claimed injury . As of right now there is nothing I as the "victim" has to lose , only John Doe stands to lose . Even if I lose my case against him , it still costs him because he had to hire legal council to represent him . That's why there are so many frivolous lawsuits in America . That's why some scammers make a living off it .

Now if I had to pay for John Doe's legal expenses when I lost my case . Then how likely would I be to file a frivolous law suit against John Doe and his grocery store ? I wouln't unless I truly was hurt and believed in my case and my cause . It's too easy to sue people today , because their is nothing to lose . Yet if there were , it would dramatically stop nonsense lawsuits , free up courts and save the tax payer billions every year .

As far as the criminal law you're talking about where the police hold some who is later determined to be innocent , and then are indebted to them for some monetary reimbursement . I don't see how or why that would work . The tax payer would be the one stuck with the reimbursement , in an already stretched legal system . How would it work ? Would it be a capped fee of say one hundred dollars ? Or would it give the citizen the right to sue the police department in a jury trial for an undetermined sum of money ? Which could potentially bankrupt small municipalities . Essentially what you're saying is it would be illegal for the police department to wrongfully suspect anyone of a crime . The law is innocent until proven guilty , not the other way around .

And wouldn't that behoove the states attorney to push that case of the innocent people , to take it to trail , even though they knew that the said party was innocent ? To avoid costly penalties to an over burdened legal system . Seems to me it may in fact cause innocent people to be convicted more , not less .

 

The one problem is this would inherently basically be a regressive tax without a whole plethora of other reforms to go along with it. Most cases do not go to trial, they're settled through plea deals since the system works by giving a person as many charges as possible so that a trial becomes a ridiculously huge risk. Hence most people are never legally found as innocent. As such, most people who go to trial can already afford pretty good lawyers, and afford them for extended periods of time.(or are facing charges where they got nothing to loose)

As for the police, we'd have to change our entire legal system, I don't mean the practicals I mean our entire philosophy of it. It's not the polce's job to determine guilt. That's for the jury or judge, as well as the DA who decided whether to prosecute a case. The police's job is to find suspects.

 

I believe people can sue for wrongful arrest as is can't they?

 

We should be reimbursed for being found innocent. It will be a while before our government goes for that though.

In my town we pay out the ass for court fees and the cost of being in jail. rarely will a judge let someone pay their fines off with community service. if the officials in my city are going to try to get the most capital they can from the crimes people commit, they can afford to reimburse people who are found innocent. I don't see them improving our city, so what would we be losing by reimbursing innocent people?

 

criminal gang members would go out of their way to be inconvenienced by police just so they could get that $krilla

 

If we got reimbursed for inconveniences everybody would be bitching because casey anthony would have just made a ton of money

 

When frivolous lawsuits are filed the loser should always pay the total costs.