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?
 
Back
Top