A resolution to compensate the wrongly convicted.

" The government is trying to compensate them not give them their whole yearly income" Compensate means you get what you would have gotten had the problem not arisen. A, not A? ", if we did give them their whole yearly income it wouldn't be fair because the government is trying to compensate them for the time they have been wrongly in jail; not for the equivalent of them working that whole year" The fact that they didn't work that year resulted directly from them being in jail. Indeed, the inability to do one's work is a major drawback of jail, especially for the innocent. " BECAUSE they did not work that whole year" That's what compensation in court is all about-- you compensate people for what they couldn't do because you prevented them from doing it. "You are looking at the wrongly convicted's previous jobs and income; what is the government making up for? For the "possible" yearly income that could of be given to the wrongly convicted? No, the government can't do that because it CAN'T tell if they would of worked that whole year" Certainly it can, just not with certainty. "BECAUSE of that, it must present a STABLE number that is fair to EVERYONE " The possibility of being wrong about something does NOT mean you ought to guarantee being wrong about everything, which is the result of a random "Stable" number. And such a thing would not be fair to those who would in fact work. "to EVERYONE because the government is paying them for the time they were wrongly in jail, NOT for the possible money they could of earned." To pay for something you have to have a pricing mechanism. There is no better determinant of the price of time than the money they are normally paid for that time by their employers. "Yes, it might be nothing for people who have high income job" Proof that it isn't fair to follow your proposal, since jail is a great big negative nonnothing. You cannot compensate for a nonzero with a zero. " It sure does follow, the government would be trying to be fair because it would be compensating the wrongly convicted an equal amount of money depending on the amount of time you have wrongly been sent to jail." Fair does not automatically mean equal. Indeed, people aren't equal. " What part of it do you NOT understand?" The part where you've had several rounds and nothing in it be made into a logical argument. Fair because equal because nothing but time is not how logic works. There are missing premises which you have yet to justify. \" Well, those "Objective factors" that you have are no good considering you are basing it on the wrong things to base it on" It's wrong because its wrong ("No good" is a synonym of "wrong") is not an argument. "et's say there are two wrongly convicted people. A and B. A has spent 1 year wrongly convicted, and so has B. A has been through the same things B has" This is a faulty assumption. If one falls from a greater height, one has not been through the same occurrence as one who falls from a lower height. "Now once everyone figures out they were both wrongly convicted they get a compensation; A gets 1 million dollars and B gets $5000. Is that really fair?" Yes. Its proportional to what they lost. " The whole purpose of giving them a compensation is to have justice; GIVING THEM A WHOLE DIFFERENT AMOUNT OF MONEY, EVEN IF THEY WERE WRONGLY CONVICTED FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME IS NOT FAIR." It certainly is. A man smashes your new 3000 dollar alienware, he smashes my 20 dollar thinkpad. It is perfectly fair that our compensation be in proportion to the market price of the different things we have lost, despite the fact that we can reduce them to the words "1 computer" or "1 year." No two years are the same. People invest different amounts in getting the most from different years. "Now, I think you missunderstood my point; I didn't mean literally "put them on their feet"" I don't either. It's a metaphor. I addressed it metaphorically. " I meant it in the way we are trying to help them keep on going with their life" To do that you have to take into account what rate their life was going at and where it was going. "I also agree, it is to TRY to put them where they were before; even if the psychological problems may not ever go away, but because the government doesn't know were their carreer was headed" The government has plenty of data to make a good estimate. To argue otherwise, taken to its logical conclusion, is to argue that career planning is futile. I don't know whether your computer was going to get a virus tomorrow before I smashed it today. I should still have to compensate you for it. " So are you now saying they should be paid depending on their psychological problems?" . I'm saying they should be paid based on financial damages. I didn't say anything about psychological problems. However, if clear cause and effect can be demonstrated for the psychological problems, and there is a market price for the services of a psychiatrist to treat those problems, yes, that should be added to damages. "Isn't that going against you're whole view on how they should get paid? " I said that they should be paid for demonstrable financial damages. Such as lost pay. This does NOT argue that they should not be paid for something else as well. One can pay for your lost financial damages AND the pills to treat the syphilis you got when Bubby raped you while held defenseless by a cell, for example. " No, i am not whatsoever saying every lawsuit should settle for $50,000 for every single thing" This is the logical conclusion of your assertions. "I am just using it for this case, obviously." Until you can justify something particular about the case, that's known as the ad hoc logical fallacy. In other words, you just declared that your entire argument is invalid. "All of those incidents that you named are very different than this debate, and cannot merily compare." You have not defined the relevant contrast. " The point of giving them a compensation is to have JUSTICE, the government CANNOT without any means achieve justice if it bases its compensation on previous income because it is supposed to pay them according to the time they wrongly served, not pay them what they could of made of or accomplished." Again, this is merely assuming the conclusion, circular argument fallacy.