A resolution to compensate the wrongly convicted.

" The time they have spent wrongly convicted determines how much they have suffered," Bare assertion. 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. :he time they have spent wrongly convicted determines how much they have suffered That is why $50,000 per year of incarcenation is a stable and reliable option to go with; That does not even remotely follow. You have not made an argument for why 50,000 instead of 40,000 or 100,000. It's random. It might be "Stable" but so would those other numbers. "reliable" to produce what? :And BECAUSE the government is trying to be fair, we must rely on a stable number 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. :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 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. :We are are compensating them in order for them to be able to get back on their feet 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. " 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" Um, no. That premise is EXPLICITLY dependent on them suffering equal damages per time. " we cannot "measure" the "damages" that they went through" 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. :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?" I'm not trying to "simulate" anything. I am stating that WHAT SOME OF THEM LOST is better than WHAT SOME OF THE REST OF THEM LOST in objectively estimable ways. No judgments on their stature in general are stated or implied. : it just creates further problems in the equal rights section of issues. Amend for meaningfulness. :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. It can be relied on to NEVER pay anything with any relation to the costs of the government's mistake. And no, it is utterly irrelevant how they "build their future." Some of them weren't building their future anyway. Some were. The goal is, as close as possible, to put them where they were before, or more precisely, to how they are likely to have been a year from where they were before. That is the meaning of justice in a civil controversy-- to restore damages, not to be charitable and "Get people on their feet." "How is that number NOT fair?" Shifting the burden of proof. " That money can help them in MANY new ways," That has no bearing on its fairness. "but the government would be doing its job to hold justice and compensate them for the government's mistake." No. The government's mistake either created costs of more than 50,000 for the victim or less than 50,000. The odds that it cost exactly 50,000 are infinitesimal, the odds that it is in the ballpark are no closer than the odds that a random number generator will be in the ballpark. Hence, it does not help the government do its job. "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." It can do one or it can do the other. You can't have your cake and eat it too, those are TWO DIFFERENT GOALS that require TWO DIFFERENT APPROACHES. The latter is the purpose of civil law, the former is the purpose of soup kitchens. " 6- :To base the money given to the wrongly convicted on things before they were imprisioned is unreasonable because it is their past" This is nonsense. Their past is the best measure we have of WHO THEY ARE and WHAT THEY LOST. By this argument "To demand that the government compensate for its mistake is wrong because IT IS THEIR PAST, it doesn't determine whether they deserve have to pay." Either the past matters or it doesn't. The latter premise is inconsistent with the very notion of any form of civil controversy other than a cease and desist order. :er 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" Those are perfectly just ideas. Compensation, RESTORATION, is all about RESTORING THEM TO WHERE THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST, BASED ON WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST. :First of all, you give NO source That's a moral concept. There is no "Authority" for moral concepts. Putting down a "Source" would be fallacious. " but I will attack that statement even if you give no proof that is the definition of Justice." You can't prove definitions, you can only propose alternative definitions and prove why we should give a **** about the alternative concepts enough to attach a word to them. " Anyway, would the government not be doing that if they accordingly give the wrongly convicted $50,000 per year of incarcenation? " Because they can easily be demonstrated to have in all probability caused a different amount of damages. "? They are paying that amount for the amount of time they were wrongly in jail" There is NO CONCEPTUAL RELATION WHATSOEVER between the amounts "1 year" and "50,000 dollars." " Should we really base it on their past?" Yes. It's compensation for WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 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. " this statement would mean exactly as much if you said 40,000 or 100,000 or just any other number you can imagine. Hence, it cannot possibly prove what you are setting out to prove. The purpose is not to "provide many things," it is to provide what they had back, from the people who took it. Also, this statement is a contradiction, the AMOUNT OF TIME THEY SPENT WRONGLY CONVICTED IS IN THEIR PAST. "Spent" is a past tense word for crying out loud.