If I had to spend 18 years in prison being wrongly accused of a crime I did not commit, there would be two things I would want to do after I'm acquitted. First, sue the court of justice, and if I do not get a resonable settlement, then hunt all members of the jury who declared me guilty and kill them. Least of all, I would expect the'court of Justice' to cut 'living expenses' from the settlement I recieve.
What I lose from being in prison is opportunity cost. Yes, I could have earned much lower than what I recieved in the settlement, but then, I could have also earned much higher an income, partnered Bill Gates in his humanitarian campaigns, married Prince William and inherited a fortune. Maybe this seems far and beyond (and silly), but if Bush can be president anything's possible.
Which is why my sympathies are with Michael and Vincent Hickey, who were wrongly convicted and spent 46 years in prison. Their settlements were subject to 25% deductions for their 'boarding and lodging' expenses in prison! Honestly, I cannot comprehend how the court could dish out such a ruling. What these two men lost in prison was not just money. They were isolated, had to spend time with convicted murderers/cheats/robbers/troublemakers etc, when they could have had a family, some quality social time and could have lived without the misconception of being a murderer. Honour, pride, self dignity; all lost. The court makes a careless mistake and the victim pays for it?
This is absolute stupidity in its purest form. I'm from India where prisoners have to wait months, years, decades to get a hearing in the court. We look towards the west in our pursuit for perfection. But if the west lets down its people in such a shameful manner, what face would they have in front of the world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
There was a similar array of cases represented against the HM Revenue department. The HM revenue department comes up with a number for your taxes and you better pay it to them in time, even if you think they committed a gross-miscalculation.
There was a case of a young lady who was sent a tax bill of £3000. She paid £2000 and challenged the rest £ 1000. She notified the HM revenue department of their mistake. Seemingly the notice went to the wrong cell in HM Revenues. So, they didn't take notice of it and penalised the woman. They seized all her assets, declared her bankrupt. She spent 7 years in homes for homeless while fighting for her case. In the end, court said that she was right. But, HM revenue can not be prosecuted, it is the holy grail. Moreover, the money she received from HM revenue was £1000. Court said HM revenue is the only department which need not provide compensation. What the woman received was just her money back!
What do you say about that deepu? It is sad that the institutions that are our last resort to justice prove to be weak and incapable.
Post a Comment