The blog post "Texas innocence compensation still looks pretty good (compared to Kansas)" from the blog Grits for Breakfast talks about the amount of compensation Texas gives towards those falsely accused of a crime. There are no specific authors stated because of it's editorial nature, but we can find out about it's board of writers through here: bios. The targeted audience of this blog is pointed towards local government officials and the everyday people, as it is trying to convince them that this part of the criminal justice system is a good idea and should be supported and implemented, as it would save both the government and taxpayers a lot of money to be used somewhere else.
The article's main argument is that the amount paid towards the innocent is a fair and decent amount, especially when compared to other states like Kansas, who are currently considering using a similar compensation policy. It provides evidence by stating Texas gives a "lump sum of $80,000 per year served, along with lifetime annuity payments
of $40,000 to $50,000 plus $25,000 for every year someone was
wrongfully registered as a sex offender"
One major evidence that this blog post uses is the historic data of previous events. For example, the article says that one person in Kansas named Eddie Lowery was wrongfully sentenced to 9 years for rape. But then, he won 7.5 Million dollars from a settlement. He declined the state compensation after being released because of how low that annual compensation was. If he were given $80,000 a year for a total of the 9 years he served, he might have accepted, and the total would only amount to $720,000, a significant difference from 7.5 million. Basically, by raising the amount given, they are still able to potentially save large sums of money.
Because of this, the author's logic behind this argument is that the reason these states are increasing compensation amounts is because "civil suits can cost local government much more". What this means is some people who are wrongfully accused refuse to accept the low compensation and instead sue the government, which would leave them "open to much larger liability".
Ultimately, I would have to agree with this author that Texas' current innocence compensation does indeed look good. I would imagine anyone would be pretty upset if they had to spend many years in jail for a crime they did not commit. If they discovered that the compensation for spending say 10 years in jail is $25,000 annually, the amount Texas USED to pay, then they would probably be very angry. The article also says that many people who are released after a long time in jail often possess "few marketable skills and/or an array of health problems", so they really aren't in a good position to start working again to sustain themselves. By raising the the amount paid, these wrongfully convicted people can quickly get back on their feet, and most likely won't sue the government.
Ultimately, I would have to agree with this author that Texas' current innocence compensation does indeed look good. I would imagine anyone would be pretty upset if they had to spend many years in jail for a crime they did not commit. If they discovered that the compensation for spending say 10 years in jail is $25,000 annually, the amount Texas USED to pay, then they would probably be very angry. The article also says that many people who are released after a long time in jail often possess "few marketable skills and/or an array of health problems", so they really aren't in a good position to start working again to sustain themselves. By raising the the amount paid, these wrongfully convicted people can quickly get back on their feet, and most likely won't sue the government.
No comments:
Post a Comment