A resolution to compensate the wrongly convicted.

1- "relying the amount of money the wrongly convicted should get on their previous income is unjust and an irrational thing to do." It's perfectly rational, it's the major objective factor in how much harm they have suffered. No, their previous money income does not whatsoever determine how much harm they have suffered; that is the money income they received before they were sent to jail, how does that even come close to become the amount they have suffered? The time they have spent wrongly convicted determines how much they have suffered, that is why depending on previous income is NOT a rational thing to do. That is why $50,000 per year of incarcenation is a stable and reliable option to go with; because we don't know what the wrongly convicted could of accomplished while they were in jail, relying on $50,000 per year of incarcenation is the best option to go with. 2- ". In the time those people were wrongly convicted, they could of easily gotten a way higher-income job or an education that helped them get to that higher-paying job." Whereas many of them DEFINITELY had a higher paying job than 50,000 a year. Uniqueness criterion. And BECAUSE the government is trying to be fair, we must rely on a stable number; not numbers based on their past. We are not compensating them the money they could of made during the time they were wrongly convicted because that could be any number. We are are compensating them in order for them to be able to get back on their feet and $50,000 per year of incarcenation is fair enough. 3- "Because the government is trying to be just in the process of compensating the wrongly convicted, they should in fact have a stable number like $50,000 per year of imprisionment because it would be equally fair to every single one of them. " They have not suffered equal damages, hence it wouldn't be fair. Should people whose Ferrari was blown up by someone receive the same compensation as someone whose old junker was? I understand they all didn't suffer equal damages but that is why $50,000 per year of incarcenation is fair to them because we are basing it on the time they were wrongly convicted; we cannot "measure" the "damages" that they went through so the only way we can be fair is by paying them according to the amount of time they were wrongly convicted. That is the only way justice can be achieved. By comparing a Ferrari to an old junker are you trying to simulate that some people that were wrongly convicted are "better" than each other? If you are that is a pretty sad thing to do. An addition to that, basing their compensation on their previous money is unjust, it just creates further problems in the equal rights section of issues. 4- :Creating a compensation based on previous "income before imprisionment" would create an unfair deal because the government doesn't know what that income could of been during those imprisionment years and because of that they should have a stable and reliable number like $50,000. There is nothing "Reliable" about that number-- it has no relation to damages or anything else but the fact that you ASSERT it's fair. That number IS reliable, that money is to pay off for the government's mistake in sending them to jail but more importantly to try to help them build their future again. How is that number NOT fair? That money can help them in MANY new ways, the way they choose to use it depends on their intentions on the money in itself; but the government would be doing its job to hold justice and compensate them for the government's mistake. 5- : To remind everyone, that money is to get them back on their feet economy wise and to try to live their lifes again It is to compensate them for damages. And could it not also be used to help them rebuild their lifes? 6- :To base the money given to the wrongly convicted on things before they were imprisioned is unreasonable because it is their past; what we should base it on is the time that they were imprisioned and by creating the compensation of $50,000 per year of imprisionment, the government creates a fair compensation that doesn't base the money given to the wrongly convicted on unjust past ideas like "previous income" or "rate at which their income was increasing up to that point".You have not demonstrated it is fair, and previous income and rate of increase is entirely just. Justice consists of people paying for the consequences of their actions-- the government should pay for demonstrable consequences of their actions. Yes I have demonstrated how it is fair, you should pay more attention and read carefully. I have clearly said many times that is fair because you are basing it on the amount of TIME they spent wrongly convicted. How is that NOT fair? You say "Justice consists of people paying for the consequences of their actions-- the government should pay for demonstrable consequences of their actions." First of all, you give NO source but I will attack that statement even if you give no proof that is the definition of Justice. Anyway, would the government not be doing that if they accordingly give the wrongly convicted $50,000 per year of incarcenation? They are paying that amount for the amount of time they were wrongly in jail, so how is that not paying for the consequences of their actions? If the actions of the government were to send them to jail. Conclusion: My opponent doesn't agree with $50,000 per year of incarcenation because he wants to base the money the wrongly convicted get on previous income before getting put in jail but is that what we should really base the money we give them on? Should we really base it on their past? $50,000 per year of incarcenation provides many things for the wrongly convicted and it is FAIR because they would all get a certain amount depending on the amount they spent wrongly convicted, not based on their past. Basing on their past is the unjust idea, basing on their past is what we DON't need; basing on their past would ONLY create more problems and as you have noticed that is the LEAST thing we need.