Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6


11696 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3783

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1114772 24-Aug-2014 20:34
Send private message

networkn:
Geektastic:
networkn:
sleemanj: The trouble is that the population at large has the (not quite, but almost universal) misguided opinion "if the police arrest them, they MUST be guilty", doesn't matter what the outcome of a trial, let alone an appeal, doesn't matter the evidence or lack thereof, to the population at large, once you've been arrested, you are guilty, and guilty people don't get paid out.

Politicians know this, they know that if they pay out somebody who was incorrectly detained, that large swathes of the VOTING public will be incensed that this obviously guilty person (because they were arrested, let alone tried for the crime) has received a payment, which they will perceive as coming from their tax dollars.

So the answer to the question "Why is there no right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment in NZ?" is, in my humble opinion, "because the unwashed masses are by and large one step away from forming a vigilante mob with torches and pitchforks based on no more than somebody being arrested".



This might be the case in the people you mix with, but I've never heard of anything like that in my 35+ years. Most (I say this having not once found an exception) people would be more than happy for genuinely innocent people to be compensated for being wrongly imprisoned. I can't imagine much worse than having it happen to me for sure. 

I do however firmly believe that those who spend time in prison for a crime they DO commit, and get off on a technicality, should get nothing (except their freedom), and I've found the VAST majority of people feel this way too.

I would say that I would view someone arrested (and charged) for a crime, to be reasonably likely to be guilty of said crime, as an initial impression. 


However, it is pretty rare for someone to do what you suggest, because the only certain way would be if they actually admitted the crime, in which case it's unlikely in the extreme a 'technicality' would serve to get them off.

In the case of Mr Bain which has been offered as an example here by others, I am fairly sure he has never done anything but deny responsibility from day one. I would agree he might have committed an offence against public decency with regard to knitted wearing apparel however....

Fortunately, how you or anyone else chooses to view a suspect's arrest and charge  with regard to guilt or otherwise is not how the legal system works - otherwise we really will be heading back to pitchfork-toting mobs!


Well I guess I am talking about someone who gets their conviction overturned as a result of a thing like incorrect chain of evidence or something like that. The evidence shows they did commit the crime, categorically, but it can't be presented at trial due to a breach of the rules. 
Whilst I am not happy they are out, it falls into the way that the rules work, and I am prepared to accept it, however to then turn around and give that person money as compensation for spending time in prison, I'm afraid you'd never convince me that is the right thing to do. 

I will be very unhappy indeed if Bain gets compensated (As I believe he falls into the above category), however, we are a socialist country and will likely give him something I believe. 


So let us assume two people who commit identical crimes and the evidence chain is compromised as you suggest.

Person A is found not guilty at trial and released to continue life.

Person B is found guilty, jailed for 20 years. 10 years later, the chain of evidence issue comes to light and his conviction is found to be unsafe and he is released.

In that example, A has had 10 years of freedom and earning. B has not.

Both allegedly committed the same crime but were not convicted for the same reason, simply at different points in time.

It seems to me that the State, which presumably had responsibility for the evidence chain, owes person B some compensation. Do you not think so?





3030 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1505


  Reply # 1114790 24-Aug-2014 21:00
Send private message

Geektastic:
networkn:
Geektastic:
networkn:
sleemanj: The trouble is that the population at large has the (not quite, but almost universal) misguided opinion "if the police arrest them, they MUST be guilty", doesn't matter what the outcome of a trial, let alone an appeal, doesn't matter the evidence or lack thereof, to the population at large, once you've been arrested, you are guilty, and guilty people don't get paid out.

Politicians know this, they know that if they pay out somebody who was incorrectly detained, that large swathes of the VOTING public will be incensed that this obviously guilty person (because they were arrested, let alone tried for the crime) has received a payment, which they will perceive as coming from their tax dollars.

So the answer to the question "Why is there no right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment in NZ?" is, in my humble opinion, "because the unwashed masses are by and large one step away from forming a vigilante mob with torches and pitchforks based on no more than somebody being arrested".



This might be the case in the people you mix with, but I've never heard of anything like that in my 35+ years. Most (I say this having not once found an exception) people would be more than happy for genuinely innocent people to be compensated for being wrongly imprisoned. I can't imagine much worse than having it happen to me for sure. 

I do however firmly believe that those who spend time in prison for a crime they DO commit, and get off on a technicality, should get nothing (except their freedom), and I've found the VAST majority of people feel this way too.

I would say that I would view someone arrested (and charged) for a crime, to be reasonably likely to be guilty of said crime, as an initial impression. 


However, it is pretty rare for someone to do what you suggest, because the only certain way would be if they actually admitted the crime, in which case it's unlikely in the extreme a 'technicality' would serve to get them off.

In the case of Mr Bain which has been offered as an example here by others, I am fairly sure he has never done anything but deny responsibility from day one. I would agree he might have committed an offence against public decency with regard to knitted wearing apparel however....

Fortunately, how you or anyone else chooses to view a suspect's arrest and charge  with regard to guilt or otherwise is not how the legal system works - otherwise we really will be heading back to pitchfork-toting mobs!


Well I guess I am talking about someone who gets their conviction overturned as a result of a thing like incorrect chain of evidence or something like that. The evidence shows they did commit the crime, categorically, but it can't be presented at trial due to a breach of the rules. 
Whilst I am not happy they are out, it falls into the way that the rules work, and I am prepared to accept it, however to then turn around and give that person money as compensation for spending time in prison, I'm afraid you'd never convince me that is the right thing to do. 

I will be very unhappy indeed if Bain gets compensated (As I believe he falls into the above category), however, we are a socialist country and will likely give him something I believe. 


So let us assume two people who commit identical crimes and the evidence chain is compromised as you suggest.

Person A is found not guilty at trial and released to continue life.

Person B is found guilty, jailed for 20 years. 10 years later, the chain of evidence issue comes to light and his conviction is found to be unsafe and he is released.

In that example, A has had 10 years of freedom and earning. B has not.

Both allegedly committed the same crime but were not convicted for the same reason, simply at different points in time.

It seems to me that the State, which presumably had responsibility for the evidence chain, owes person B some compensation. Do you not think so?


No.  He committed the crime, why should the taxpayer pay out?  





Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then always be the Batman



17576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5060

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1114792 24-Aug-2014 21:02
Send private message

 

No.  He committed the crime, why should the taxpayer pay out?  



Exactly. 



11696 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3783

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1114988 25-Aug-2014 11:11
Send private message

scuwp:
Geektastic:
networkn:
Geektastic:
networkn:
sleemanj: The trouble is that the population at large has the (not quite, but almost universal) misguided opinion "if the police arrest them, they MUST be guilty", doesn't matter what the outcome of a trial, let alone an appeal, doesn't matter the evidence or lack thereof, to the population at large, once you've been arrested, you are guilty, and guilty people don't get paid out.

Politicians know this, they know that if they pay out somebody who was incorrectly detained, that large swathes of the VOTING public will be incensed that this obviously guilty person (because they were arrested, let alone tried for the crime) has received a payment, which they will perceive as coming from their tax dollars.

So the answer to the question "Why is there no right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment in NZ?" is, in my humble opinion, "because the unwashed masses are by and large one step away from forming a vigilante mob with torches and pitchforks based on no more than somebody being arrested".



This might be the case in the people you mix with, but I've never heard of anything like that in my 35+ years. Most (I say this having not once found an exception) people would be more than happy for genuinely innocent people to be compensated for being wrongly imprisoned. I can't imagine much worse than having it happen to me for sure. 

I do however firmly believe that those who spend time in prison for a crime they DO commit, and get off on a technicality, should get nothing (except their freedom), and I've found the VAST majority of people feel this way too.

I would say that I would view someone arrested (and charged) for a crime, to be reasonably likely to be guilty of said crime, as an initial impression. 


However, it is pretty rare for someone to do what you suggest, because the only certain way would be if they actually admitted the crime, in which case it's unlikely in the extreme a 'technicality' would serve to get them off.

In the case of Mr Bain which has been offered as an example here by others, I am fairly sure he has never done anything but deny responsibility from day one. I would agree he might have committed an offence against public decency with regard to knitted wearing apparel however....

Fortunately, how you or anyone else chooses to view a suspect's arrest and charge  with regard to guilt or otherwise is not how the legal system works - otherwise we really will be heading back to pitchfork-toting mobs!


Well I guess I am talking about someone who gets their conviction overturned as a result of a thing like incorrect chain of evidence or something like that. The evidence shows they did commit the crime, categorically, but it can't be presented at trial due to a breach of the rules. 
Whilst I am not happy they are out, it falls into the way that the rules work, and I am prepared to accept it, however to then turn around and give that person money as compensation for spending time in prison, I'm afraid you'd never convince me that is the right thing to do. 

I will be very unhappy indeed if Bain gets compensated (As I believe he falls into the above category), however, we are a socialist country and will likely give him something I believe. 


So let us assume two people who commit identical crimes and the evidence chain is compromised as you suggest.

Person A is found not guilty at trial and released to continue life.

Person B is found guilty, jailed for 20 years. 10 years later, the chain of evidence issue comes to light and his conviction is found to be unsafe and he is released.

In that example, A has had 10 years of freedom and earning. B has not.

Both allegedly committed the same crime but were not convicted for the same reason, simply at different points in time.

It seems to me that the State, which presumably had responsibility for the evidence chain, owes person B some compensation. Do you not think so?


No.  He committed the crime, why should the taxpayer pay out?  



Because (a) the court said that if he did, it cannot be adequately proven (b) the State deprived him of liberty unlawfully. Arguably that is the verdict that should have been reached in the Person B's trial in the first place in which case he would have lost nothing.  

In the Bain case, he was specifically found 'Not Guilty' on all 5 murder charges. There really does not seem much room for claiming "Well I know he did it even though a jury did not agree with me, so he should not get anything". Otherwise in corollary one could theoretically detain former defendants found not guilty at a trial and lock them in your shed. When charged with kidnapping and/or unlawful imprisonment, a defence that "He did (the crime he was acquitted of) anyway, so he should be locked up" would be enough of a defence....





17576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5060

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1114992 25-Aug-2014 11:13
Send private message

Geektastic:
scuwp:
Geektastic:
networkn:
Geektastic:
networkn:
sleemanj: The trouble is that the population at large has the (not quite, but almost universal) misguided opinion "if the police arrest them, they MUST be guilty", doesn't matter what the outcome of a trial, let alone an appeal, doesn't matter the evidence or lack thereof, to the population at large, once you've been arrested, you are guilty, and guilty people don't get paid out.

Politicians know this, they know that if they pay out somebody who was incorrectly detained, that large swathes of the VOTING public will be incensed that this obviously guilty person (because they were arrested, let alone tried for the crime) has received a payment, which they will perceive as coming from their tax dollars.

So the answer to the question "Why is there no right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment in NZ?" is, in my humble opinion, "because the unwashed masses are by and large one step away from forming a vigilante mob with torches and pitchforks based on no more than somebody being arrested".



This might be the case in the people you mix with, but I've never heard of anything like that in my 35+ years. Most (I say this having not once found an exception) people would be more than happy for genuinely innocent people to be compensated for being wrongly imprisoned. I can't imagine much worse than having it happen to me for sure. 

I do however firmly believe that those who spend time in prison for a crime they DO commit, and get off on a technicality, should get nothing (except their freedom), and I've found the VAST majority of people feel this way too.

I would say that I would view someone arrested (and charged) for a crime, to be reasonably likely to be guilty of said crime, as an initial impression. 


However, it is pretty rare for someone to do what you suggest, because the only certain way would be if they actually admitted the crime, in which case it's unlikely in the extreme a 'technicality' would serve to get them off.

In the case of Mr Bain which has been offered as an example here by others, I am fairly sure he has never done anything but deny responsibility from day one. I would agree he might have committed an offence against public decency with regard to knitted wearing apparel however....

Fortunately, how you or anyone else chooses to view a suspect's arrest and charge  with regard to guilt or otherwise is not how the legal system works - otherwise we really will be heading back to pitchfork-toting mobs!


Well I guess I am talking about someone who gets their conviction overturned as a result of a thing like incorrect chain of evidence or something like that. The evidence shows they did commit the crime, categorically, but it can't be presented at trial due to a breach of the rules. 
Whilst I am not happy they are out, it falls into the way that the rules work, and I am prepared to accept it, however to then turn around and give that person money as compensation for spending time in prison, I'm afraid you'd never convince me that is the right thing to do. 

I will be very unhappy indeed if Bain gets compensated (As I believe he falls into the above category), however, we are a socialist country and will likely give him something I believe. 


So let us assume two people who commit identical crimes and the evidence chain is compromised as you suggest.

Person A is found not guilty at trial and released to continue life.

Person B is found guilty, jailed for 20 years. 10 years later, the chain of evidence issue comes to light and his conviction is found to be unsafe and he is released.

In that example, A has had 10 years of freedom and earning. B has not.

Both allegedly committed the same crime but were not convicted for the same reason, simply at different points in time.

It seems to me that the State, which presumably had responsibility for the evidence chain, owes person B some compensation. Do you not think so?


No.  He committed the crime, why should the taxpayer pay out?  



Because (a) the court said that if he did, it cannot be adequately proven (b) the State deprived him of liberty unlawfully. Arguably that is the verdict that should have been reached in the Person B's trial in the first place in which case he would have lost nothing.  

In the Bain case, he was specifically found 'Not Guilty' on all 5 murder charges. There really does not seem much room for claiming "Well I know he did it even though a jury did not agree with me, so he should not get anything". Otherwise in corollary one could theoretically detain former defendants found not guilty at a trial and lock them in your shed. When charged with kidnapping and/or unlawful imprisonment, a defence that "He did (the crime he was acquitted of) anyway, so he should be locked up" would be enough of a defence....


Based on that logic, the first time around they found him guilty, so then why would he be due compensation?

Also not guilty, does not mean innocent :) 




537 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 37


  Reply # 1115017 25-Aug-2014 11:37
Send private message

The other thing is that the system is slow, so people can be held in remand for over a year while they are waiting for their case to come up.  I don't think it is great that people might have to spend a year in prison before they have been found guilty of anything (nor do I think it would be great that dangerous/guilty people would be free for a year while waiting for trial).  The delays in the system are too long.  A year in prison would wreak havoc on your life even before you've been found guilty of anything.

17576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5060

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1115022 25-Aug-2014 11:41
Send private message

wongtop: The other thing is that the system is slow, so people can be held in remand for over a year while they are waiting for their case to come up.  I don't think it is great that people might have to spend a year in prison before they have been found guilty of anything (nor do I think it would be great that dangerous/guilty people would be free for a year while waiting for trial).  The delays in the system are too long.  A year in prison would wreak havoc on your life even before you've been found guilty of anything.


Yah that is a fair call actually, though if you spent time in remand, that time is taken from your sentence.

It's a bit of a hard call though as lawyers need time to prepare a defence or prosecution adequately

3030 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1505


  Reply # 1115075 25-Aug-2014 12:45
Send private message

networkn:
wongtop: The other thing is that the system is slow, so people can be held in remand for over a year while they are waiting for their case to come up.  I don't think it is great that people might have to spend a year in prison before they have been found guilty of anything (nor do I think it would be great that dangerous/guilty people would be free for a year while waiting for trial).  The delays in the system are too long.  A year in prison would wreak havoc on your life even before you've been found guilty of anything.


Yah that is a fair call actually, though if you spent time in remand, that time is taken from your sentence.

It's a bit of a hard call though as lawyers need time to prepare a defense or prosecution adequately


Also only those with a history and/or are a risk to society get remanded in custody, the rest (vast majority) are released on bail.  There is also the chance to argue a custodial remand on the basis of the weight of evidence. I would assume those incarcerated in such situations would have an equal right to apply for compensation as a person convicted and later acquitted?  They would still need to pass a test of 'on the balance of probabilities innocent' however.  

Being found innocent does not equal "not guilty".  That's just really naive.





  




Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then always be the Batman





11696 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3783

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1115105 25-Aug-2014 13:15
Send private message

scuwp:
networkn:
wongtop: The other thing is that the system is slow, so people can be held in remand for over a year while they are waiting for their case to come up.  I don't think it is great that people might have to spend a year in prison before they have been found guilty of anything (nor do I think it would be great that dangerous/guilty people would be free for a year while waiting for trial).  The delays in the system are too long.  A year in prison would wreak havoc on your life even before you've been found guilty of anything.


Yah that is a fair call actually, though if you spent time in remand, that time is taken from your sentence.

It's a bit of a hard call though as lawyers need time to prepare a defense or prosecution adequately


Also only those with a history and/or are a risk to society get remanded in custody, the rest (vast majority) are released on bail.  There is also the chance to argue a custodial remand on the basis of the weight of evidence. I would assume those incarcerated in such situations would have an equal right to apply for compensation as a person convicted and later acquitted?  They would still need to pass a test of 'on the balance of probabilities innocent' however.  

Being found innocent does not equal "not guilty".  That's just really naive.





  


In fact the verdict is "Not Guilty"

If we follow your logic it is equally reasonable to assume that being found "guilty" does not equal 'guilty'.

The law is a technical construct. "Getting off on a technicality" is hardly an oddity therefore. To use my law lecturer's example of many years ago: if the law is drafted by Parliament to state that murder is only murder when committed by a person wearing a blue hat, then if you kill someone whilst not wearing a blue hat you have NOT committed murder within the meaning of the law. The fact that you were not wearing a blue hat is a technicality but it is a crucial one.

To add to the remand point: if you are jailed on remand for 12 months, your business goes bust and your wife leaves you, then at trial you are found not guilty, are you then entitled to compensation for the harm that the State has done to your life?





3030 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1505


  Reply # 1115134 25-Aug-2014 13:54
Send private message

Geektastic:
scuwp:
networkn:
wongtop: The other thing is that the system is slow, so people can be held in remand for over a year while they are waiting for their case to come up.  I don't think it is great that people might have to spend a year in prison before they have been found guilty of anything (nor do I think it would be great that dangerous/guilty people would be free for a year while waiting for trial).  The delays in the system are too long.  A year in prison would wreak havoc on your life even before you've been found guilty of anything.


Yah that is a fair call actually, though if you spent time in remand, that time is taken from your sentence.

It's a bit of a hard call though as lawyers need time to prepare a defense or prosecution adequately


Also only those with a history and/or are a risk to society get remanded in custody, the rest (vast majority) are released on bail.  There is also the chance to argue a custodial remand on the basis of the weight of evidence. I would assume those incarcerated in such situations would have an equal right to apply for compensation as a person convicted and later acquitted?  They would still need to pass a test of 'on the balance of probabilities innocent' however.  

Being found innocent does not equal "not guilty".  That's just really naive.





  


In fact the verdict is "Not Guilty"

If we follow your logic it is equally reasonable to assume that being found "guilty" does not equal 'guilty'.

The law is a technical construct. "Getting off on a technicality" is hardly an oddity therefore. To use my law lecturer's example of many years ago: if the law is drafted by Parliament to state that murder is only murder when committed by a person wearing a blue hat, then if you kill someone whilst not wearing a blue hat you have NOT committed murder within the meaning of the law. The fact that you were not wearing a blue hat is a technicality but it is a crucial one.

To add to the remand point: if you are jailed on remand for 12 months, your business goes bust and your wife leaves you, then at trial you are found not guilty, are you then entitled to compensation for the harm that the State has done to your life?


Definitely, provided you can prove to a reasonable standard that you are in all likelihood innocent of the allegation.

If you are "not guilty" just because a policeman said "and" instead of "or" when reading your rights, or because there was a typo on a charging document, and every other piece of evidence says you are guilty...absolutely not.

I hear where you are coming from, but I doubt the fact that the offender was not wearing a blue hat would be accepted by any normal society, let alone the victim, whether or not it is "right" in the eyes of the law.   What's that saying?...sometimes 'the law is an ass'.  This is the exact sort of argument that keep lawyers in the manner in which they have become accustomed.    
 
 




Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then always be the Batman



1376 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 580


  Reply # 1115196 25-Aug-2014 14:41
One person supports this post
Send private message

networkn:
wongtop: The other thing is that the system is slow, so people can be held in remand for over a year while they are waiting for their case to come up.  I don't think it is great that people might have to spend a year in prison before they have been found guilty of anything (nor do I think it would be great that dangerous/guilty people would be free for a year while waiting for trial).  The delays in the system are too long.  A year in prison would wreak havoc on your life even before you've been found guilty of anything.


Yah that is a fair call actually, though if you spent time in remand, that time is taken from your sentence.

It's a bit of a hard call though as lawyers need time to prepare a defence or prosecution adequately


Personally, if I spent a year in remand because I looked too much like someone who did someone naughty, even if I was released after the trial with a pat on the head form the judge and a certificate saying not guilty, my life would be severely stuffed up. My employer is unlikely to hold my job open indefinitely, my bank will surely want my mortgage paid, my wife and kids will be suffering, not to mention the slur on my name that would result. All of this would not be compensated for.

Justice delayed, is justice denied.

507 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 41


  Reply # 1115254 25-Aug-2014 15:25
Send private message

....because everyone spends a year on remand with no evidence and little likelihood of conviction......

Yes, the system could be faster. Thats why the majority spend time in the community on bail. The ones that are someone naughty, more than likely are there for a reason......

17576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5060

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1115285 25-Aug-2014 15:58
Send private message

Geektastic:
scuwp:
networkn:
wongtop: The other thing is that the system is slow, so people can be held in remand for over a year while they are waiting for their case to come up.  I don't think it is great that people might have to spend a year in prison before they have been found guilty of anything (nor do I think it would be great that dangerous/guilty people would be free for a year while waiting for trial).  The delays in the system are too long.  A year in prison would wreak havoc on your life even before you've been found guilty of anything.


Yah that is a fair call actually, though if you spent time in remand, that time is taken from your sentence.

It's a bit of a hard call though as lawyers need time to prepare a defense or prosecution adequately


Also only those with a history and/or are a risk to society get remanded in custody, the rest (vast majority) are released on bail.  There is also the chance to argue a custodial remand on the basis of the weight of evidence. I would assume those incarcerated in such situations would have an equal right to apply for compensation as a person convicted and later acquitted?  They would still need to pass a test of 'on the balance of probabilities innocent' however.  

Being found innocent does not equal "not guilty".  That's just really naive.





  


In fact the verdict is "Not Guilty"

If we follow your logic it is equally reasonable to assume that being found "guilty" does not equal 'guilty'.

The law is a technical construct. "Getting off on a technicality" is hardly an oddity therefore. To use my law lecturer's example of many years ago: if the law is drafted by Parliament to state that murder is only murder when committed by a person wearing a blue hat, then if you kill someone whilst not wearing a blue hat you have NOT committed murder within the meaning of the law. The fact that you were not wearing a blue hat is a technicality but it is a crucial one.

To add to the remand point: if you are jailed on remand for 12 months, your business goes bust and your wife leaves you, then at trial you are found not guilty, are you then entitled to compensation for the harm that the State has done to your life?


Some people might consider their wives leaving them as compensation enough :-)

17576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5060

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1115290 25-Aug-2014 16:03
Send private message

BlueShift:
networkn:
wongtop: The other thing is that the system is slow, so people can be held in remand for over a year while they are waiting for their case to come up.  I don't think it is great that people might have to spend a year in prison before they have been found guilty of anything (nor do I think it would be great that dangerous/guilty people would be free for a year while waiting for trial).  The delays in the system are too long.  A year in prison would wreak havoc on your life even before you've been found guilty of anything.


Yah that is a fair call actually, though if you spent time in remand, that time is taken from your sentence.

It's a bit of a hard call though as lawyers need time to prepare a defence or prosecution adequately


Personally, if I spent a year in remand because I looked too much like someone who did someone naughty, even if I was released after the trial with a pat on the head form the judge and a certificate saying not guilty, my life would be severely stuffed up. My employer is unlikely to hold my job open indefinitely, my bank will surely want my mortgage paid, my wife and kids will be suffering, not to mention the slur on my name that would result. All of this would not be compensated for.

Justice delayed, is justice denied.



Are you being serious? The chances of being remanded for a crime, based SOLEY on the fact you look like someone else who committed a crime serious enough to warrant remand in the first place are so low, it doesn't really warrant wasting bandwidth to discuss it. 



2277 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 644


  Reply # 1115295 25-Aug-2014 16:12
2 people support this post
Send private message

You don't need specific examples.

In a court of law there is GUILTY and NOT GUILTY. If a person is found not guilty by way of an aquittal, then they are legally not guilty and should be entitled to compensation.

There should be no place for the minister or anyone to decide "they shouldn't get compensation because they are probably guilty" - a court of law has already determined that the are not guilty and have been wrongfully imprisoned.

I personally think fair compensation would be their earning potential for they time they were in prison plus at least $50,000 per year wrongly served.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Intel introduces new NUC kits and NUC mini PCs
Posted 16-Aug-2018 11:03


The Warehouse leaps into the AI future with Google
Posted 15-Aug-2018 17:56


Targus set sights on enterprise and consumer growth in New Zealand
Posted 13-Aug-2018 13:47


Huawei to distribute nova 3i in New Zealand
Posted 9-Aug-2018 16:23


Home robot Vector to be available in New Zealand stores
Posted 9-Aug-2018 14:47


Panasonic announces new 2018 OLED TV line up
Posted 7-Aug-2018 16:38


Kordia completes first live 4K TV broadcast
Posted 1-Aug-2018 13:00


Schools get safer and smarter internet with Managed Network Upgrade
Posted 30-Jul-2018 20:01


DNC wants a safer .nz in the coming year
Posted 26-Jul-2018 16:08


Auldhouse becomes an AWS Authorised Training Delivery Partner in New Zealand
Posted 26-Jul-2018 15:55


Rakuten Kobo launches Kobo Clara HD entry level reader
Posted 26-Jul-2018 15:44


Kiwi team reaches semi-finals at the Microsoft Imagine Cup
Posted 26-Jul-2018 15:38


KidsCan App to Help Kiwi Children in Need
Posted 26-Jul-2018 15:32


FUJIFILM announces new high-performance lenses
Posted 24-Jul-2018 14:57


New FUJIFILM XF10 introduces square mode for Instagram sharing
Posted 24-Jul-2018 14:44



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.