Social Issues: The Right Thing To Do? Society? Obligation?

sear

Administrator
Staff member

Compensating people who are wrongfully convicted is a hard sell in some states​

By CHARLOTTE KRAMON / Updated 11:05 PM GMT-5, March 14, 2025
ATLANTA (AP) — Earlier this year, Michael Woolfolk attended a legislative committee in Georgia where lawmakers considered for a third year whether to compensate the 45-year-old for the 19 years he spent behind bars for a 2002 killing before charges against him were dismissed.
“We need to take care simply of people who have lost so many years of their lives and their ability to make money, have a job, have a family, create stability,” Republican Rep. Katie Dempsey, a sponsor of the Georgia bill, told The Associated Press. “Many are at the age where they would be looking at their savings, and instead, there’s none.”

Of the 1,739 people who have filed wrongful compensation claims under state laws since 1989, 1,328 received compensation, according to data from George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Gutman.
The latest version of Georgia’s proposal would require individuals to prove their innocence to an administrative law judge. They could receive $75,000 for each year of incarceration and reimbursement for other costs such as fines and fees. There would be an additional $25,000 for each year of incarceration awaiting a death sentence.

“The way that the state has treated these individuals by taking away their freedom and liberty and effectively ruining their lives, by wrongfully convicting them and then failing to expeditiously compensate them and help them get back on their feet, doesn’t sit well with me,” said Democratic Rep. Scott Holcomb, a bill sponsor and former prosecutor.
Whether a person was released based on a finding they were not guilty or based on trial or law enforcement error is often a sticking point. Advocates say those wrongfully convicted deserve compensation either way because they are innocent until proven guilty, but some lawmakers are hesitant to pay them.


$Money is a poor substitute for exercising a responsible "creator endowed" life.
If you at age 18 were offered an opportunity to spend the next quarter century incarcerated, after which you might receive $1.8 $million, would you?

How can we compensate them for the decades behind bars that robbed them of their lives? A family-sized bottle of vitamins?
Money may be fungible. Time on this scale is not. Life is not.

= = =

The right thing to do?
Don't wrongly convict them in the first place.
Can't unring the bell.

What are we obliged to do to make these victims of our system whole?
 
- Excelsior

Restoration of Rights Project
50-State Comparison: Pardon Policy & Practice

Contents

1. Relative pardoning frequency


New York
The governor decides and is authorized (but not required) to consult parole board for non-binding advice; governor must report pardons, with reasons, to legislature annually. No stated eligibility criteria or formal process, and applicants generally not considered if alternative administrative remedies are available.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo has exercised his pardon power in several unusual ways to benefit different classes of individuals, reviving a tradition of pardoning that had been dormant in New York for several terms. As of December 3, 2019, Governor Cuomo had pardoned more than 50 non-citizens facing deportation or other immigration-related restrictions, restored the right to vote to more than 24,000 parolees, and granted conditional pardons to more than 140 individuals prosecuted as adults when teenagers. Given the other restoration remedies available under New York law, it is not surprising that pardons have not been routinely available otherwise.


There are persuasive arguments on both sides, to restore rights to convicted felons, or not.
Since that question is answered here:

Question #1: Was there a quid pro quo expressed or implied? - I'll grant pardon (including restoring the right to vote) if you vote for me. -

Question #2: Either way, is this a conflict of interest for elected officials to control the restoration of voting rights ?

Question #3: Is this de minimis, so minor as to merit disregard? Or is it a problem in need of solution? Transfer such rights restoration authority away from the governor's immediate sphere of influence?
 
Baby with fatal brain disorder ‘saved’ by anonymous $47K donation

This third decade of our third millennium is awash with miracles.

There's basic "human interest" content to such news stories. But the news glosses over a troubling potential.

The miracles of modern medicine (healthcare) enable individuals to survive to breeding age, that would otherwise not.

As fabulous as these modern life-saving techniques are, is there an insidious down-side?

Is preventing the premature death of these patients contaminating the gene pool?

Even if so, among a solar system population exceeding 8 Billion, does it matter?
 
"It's sad that in what is supposedly the richest country on the planet acts like this actually make news - if this had been anywhere with universal medicare it would simply have happened. No bills. No cost to the parents. It would just have been done ..." S2 #4
Thus catalyzing the gene-pool contamination? (the unnatural proliferation of genes that otherwise would have been removed?)
For centuries it was a U.S. tradition for the next generation to be better off than their parents generation. That trend may have faltered.
Do these life-saving miracles benefit the current generation, at the expense of future generations?

note:
Not all life-threatening afflictions necessarily manifest genetic deficiency. Excluding genetically benign afflictions, we can confine the topic question to hereditary afflictions.
 
The following controversy is regarding "Roundup" formerly produced by Monsanto.
Monsanto claimed "Roundup" could be applied to food crops, and that it would function as a pesticide, but then become inert, food safe.
The following legal battle indicates "Roundup" isn't as safe as Monsanto / Bayer would wish us to believe.

Associated Press

Weedkiller maker asks US Supreme Court to block lawsuits claiming it failed to warn about cancer​

DAVID A. LIEB / Mon, April 7, 2025 at 4:47 PM EDT

Pesticides Liability Protection

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Global agrochemical manufacturer Bayer has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether federal law preempts thousands of state lawsuits alleging it failed to warn people that its popular weedkiller could cause cancer.

Bayer's new request to the nation's highest court comes as it is simultaneously pursing legislation in several states seeking to erect a legal shield against lawsuits targeting Roundup, a commonly used weedkiller for both farms and homes. Bayer disputes the cancer claims but has set aside $16 billion to settle cases and asserted Monday that the future of American agriculture is at stake.

In a court filing Friday, Bayer urged the Supreme Court to take up a Missouri case that awarded $1.25 million to a man who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after spraying Roundup on a community garden in St. Louis. The federally approved label for Roundup includes no warning of cancer. Bayer contends federal pesticide laws preempt states from adopting additional labeling for products and thus prohibits failure-to-warn lawsuits brought under state laws.

The Supreme Court in 2022 declined to hear a similar claim from Bayer in a California case that awarded more than $86 million to a married couple.

But Germany-based Bayer, which acquired Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018, contends the Supreme Court should intervene now because lower courts have issued conflicting rulings. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Bayer's favor last year while the 9th and 11th Circuits have ruled against its stance.


Who's right?
 

Former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who led 2020 election probe agrees to surrender law license


A former Wisconsin state Supreme Court justice who spread election conspiracies and led an investigation into President Donald Trump’s 2020 loss in the swing state agreed Monday to surrender his law license to settle multiple misconduct violations.

The state Office of Lawyer Regulation filed a 10-count complaint in November against Michael Gableman, accusing him of misconduct during the probe. The state Supreme Court ultimately could revoke Gableman’s law license, although the court rarely administers such a harsh punishment against wayward attorneys.

The OLR and Gableman filed a stipulation with the Supreme Court on Monday in which they agreed an appropriate sanction would be suspending Gableman’s license for three years. A referee overseeing the case and the Supreme Court must approve the agreement before it can take effect.

Gableman acknowledged in the filing that the complaint provides “an adequate factual basis” and that he couldn’t successfully...

CONTINUED
 
"Former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who led 2020 election probe agrees to surrender law license
A former Wisconsin state Supreme Court justice who spread election conspiracies and led an investigation into President Donald Trump’s 2020 loss in the swing state agreed Monday to surrender his law license to settle multiple misconduct violations.
The state Office of Lawyer Regulation filed a 10-count complaint ..." #7
What was Justice Gableman's role here? "Misconduct during the probe"?
Did Gableman help spread conspiracy theories authored by others? Or did Gableman play a creative role in them?

And if Gableman will no longer be Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice, what will he be doing instead? Unlicensed street corner peddling of pencils from a tin cup?
 
Back
Top