A resolution to compensate the wrongly convicted.

"If I make a million dollars a year, and I have been in jail for a year, 50,000 dollars is total and utter crap. It comes nowhere near objective damages. By contrast, if I make 10,000 dollars a year, I'm not just having my harms restored by having 50,000 dollars thrown my way, I'm getting a windfall. I'm BENEFITING from going to jail." The government is trying to compensate them not give them their whole yearly income, 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 BECAUSE they did not work that whole year, they were in jail. 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 or any of those days or them getting fired or many more possible outcomes that could of happened for the amount of time they were in jail. BECAUSE of that, it must present a STABLE number that is fair 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. Yes, it might be nothing for people who have high income jobs and yes it might be much for people with low income job but the government would be doing its job in giving them a stable number that is based upon the time they were wrongly convicted, not one of million possible outcomes that could of occured if they hadn't been sent wrongly to jail. "That does not follow either. This is not a syllogism, yet you present it as though it is. F therefore S is a premise, not an argument." 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. That isn't difficult to understand, well at least it isn't to me. What part of it do you NOT understand? "We are compensating them on the best guess available of the money they could made during the time wrongly convicted because THERE ARE OBJECTIVE FACTORS THAT ALLOW US TO MAKE A REASONABLE PREDICTION-- just like THE ENTIRETY OF THE REST OF LAW-AT EQUITY. When a court pursues compensation, there is NEVER certainty-- you can only rely on what the objective factors tell you is probable. 1 year therefore 50,000 means nothing. It's incoherent. It does not follow. There's a missing premise. Sure, you're basing it on time, but TIME AND WHAT? A syllogism, or an inductive simulation of one, needs TWO terms before a conclusion, NOT ONE. Guess what? Basing it on income means BASING IT ON TIME TOO. That means that basing it on income means you have MORE to base your decision on, NOT LESS." Well, those "Objective factors" that you have are no good considering you are basing it on the wrong things to base it on. Let'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. 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? NO! That is what your whole plan is going to do, create even more unjustice. 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. The government SHOULD NOT base it on their previous income because AGAIN we are compensating them on THE TIME THEY WERE WRONGLY CONVICTED, NOT FOR WHAT THEY COULD OF EARNED. "That's not what compensation means, that's pity money. If someone was on a mountain, putting them "On their feet" is not compensation, it's a goddamned insult. If someone was on their arse, putting them "On their feet" is a gift, not compensation. The purpose of compensation is, as best you can, to PUT THEM WHERE THEY WERE BEFORE." First of all, you SERIOUSLY need to calm your tone down; cursing and using God's name in vain will not help you in any way. Now, I think you missunderstood my point; I didn't mean literally "put them on their feet", I meant it in the way we are trying to help them keep on going with their life, even after the unfortunate occasion. 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 best option to go with is with a stable number compensating them for the amount of time they were wrongly in jail. "Um, no. That premise is EXPLICITLY dependent on them suffering equal damages per time." So are you now saying they should be paid depending on their psychological problems? Isn't that going against you're whole view on how they should get paid? "Sure we can. Not with certainty, but reasonable estimates at equity-- like HOW THE REST OF CIVIL LAW WORKS. By your argument, EVERY LAWSUIT EVER should be settled for 50,000 dollars per year stuff has been wrong. Someone steps on your daffodil a year ago? 50,000 dollars. Your factory destroys 10 people's homes that cost half a million dollars each when it explodes, a year ago? 50,000 dollars to each of them. this clearly makes no sense." No, i am not whatsoever saying every lawsuit should settle for $50,000 for every single thing. I am just using it for this case, obviously. All of those incidents that you named are very different than this debate, and cannot merily compare. I'm afraid I only have 3 minutes left so I have to make this as fast as I can. 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. If it does do that, Justice wouldn't be served, Justice wouldn't perserved and the whole purpose of the compensation wouldn't be RIGHT.