Financial and Emotional Compensation for Wrongfully Incarcerated People

Wrongful convictions are a global issue, not just in the United States. Despite the fact that there is no specific method for objectively measuring the accuracy of actual felony sentences, these cases continue to exist in the court system. For example, in 2014, the United States Department of Justice prison system released 125 wrongfully convicted prisoners (Afshar 135). Furthermore, the current criminal justice system would not mean that the issue will be solved any time soon. People who are wrongfully accused suffer a slew of losses. These damages are mostly emotional and financial in nature. Once an unjustly incarcerated individual is released from prison, they usually suffer emotionally due to being punished for wrongs that they did not commit in the first. Also, these individuals might also face immense social stigma upon their release, their innocence notwithstanding.

Upon release, individuals who had been wrongfully convicted might also find that they have lost their livelihood and their reputation does not allow them to reclaim the same. Consequently, it is essential that innocent convicts upon release should be both financially and emotionally compensated. All stakeholders involved in putting these innocent people behind bars must contribute towards compensating wrongfully incarcerated people. Although is mandatory to pay people who have been unfairly paid in some States, the recompense is not adequate. Overall, compensating these persons must serve not only as a measure of repairing the emotional, financial damages dealt on these individuals. On the contrary, the measure must also deter poor practices in the criminal justice systems that lead to wrongful incarcerations in the first place. The purpose of the justice system is to ensure that rights of everyone are determined and that judgments are made reasonably and in appropriate manner. Consequently, it is essential to eliminate, or at least minimize cases of wrongful convictions and incarcerations.

The Problem of Wrongful Convictions and Incarcerations in the United States

Wrongful incarcerations occur when an individual is found guit of a crime he or she did not commit and then sentenced to imprisonment. Apparently, the American officials and the public understand the existence of the issue of wrongful incarcerations hence the problem is not new. Wrongful convictions and incarcerations go back to the Salem Witch Trials to date. However, concerns surrounding illegal imprisonments such as effects of the ordeal to a person, and whether they are compensated have been largely ignored until recently. The recent interest in the matter has been aroused by the increase in exonerations of otherwise “criminals,” and the “discovery of innocence” by the public (Baumgartner, Westervelt and Cook 2).

According to Baumgartner, Westervelt, and Cook, “The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) lists 142 death row exonerations from 1973 through 2013” (2). In addition, the newly established National Registry of Exonerations reckons “1,187 cases from 1989 through mid-2013 (not limited to inmates sentenced to death)” (2). The figures reveal that only a fraction of false or wrongful convictions are ever exposed. The few cases that are discovered do not represent the entire group of innocent people languishing in prisons. More importantly, adequate measures to compensate victims of wrongful incarcerations are either lacking or poorly address the issue (Mostaghel 509).

Despite the good intentions of government agencies in ensuring justice for all, no single system is perfect. Trivelli insightfully notes that the US criminal justice system unlikely to end the problem of wrongful incarceration (258). The cause of the problem lies in poor legal standards during trials, present laws allowing police misconduct without punishment, and jury bias (258). Apparently, although the US legal system theoretically favors the defendants, the reality reveals a bias supporting the government. There has been no approach that guarantees to identify criminals without wrongly incarcerating innocent people positively. It is thus essential to explore whether wrongfully imprisoned people are financially and emotionally convicted, adequacy of the compensations if any.

Effects of Wrongful Incarcerations and Reasons for Financial and Emotional Compensation

Wrongful incarcerations cause an individual’s significant emotional and financial distress. Upon exoneration and release, the exonerees face substantial challenges in the society. According to Afshar, “exoneration provides individuals with their freedom, but it does not give them their life back” (146). The reality is that most exonerees undergo various types and degrees of problems such as mental illnesses. Afshar further points out that some of these mental diseases might include anxiety, paranoia, phobias, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression among others (147). Such forms of psychological problems also lead to relationship issues the exonerees face, overall affecting their emotional well-being.

People who have been accused and convicted falsely and later acquitted once released face other emotional challenges in their lives (Mostaghel 539). For instance, these individuals have been shown to display issues such as signs of losing their capacity for intimacy, inability to settle, moodiness estrangement, losing the sense of direction and purpose, mistrust towards others among others. Exonerees also usually released to perilous conditions characterized by employment discrimination, being socially isolated, destroyed relationships and poverty. Innocent persons who have spent much time in prison experience a lot of trouble once released into the society due to their lack of real-world skills that can provide them with a livelihood. Some of these people even lack essential life skills such as driving, using mobile phones, the Internet, and typing among others. The combination of these challenges takes a significant toll on their emotional well-being and their capacity to fit comfortably into the society.

According to Chunias and Aufgang, most exonerees once released from prison enter the society with a lot of bitterness and anger (114). The experience of being incarcerated wrongly is often traumatic since individuals feel wronged by not only the criminal justice system but also by the entire society. The anger and bitterness is transferred from the prison considering the hardships they face as they struggle to survive behind bars. Apparently, most wrongfully convicted and incarcerated persons usually hope for exoneration one day. However, once they gain their freedom, they realize that it is not enough.

Exoneration does not restore individuals to their initial status quo. Once freed into the society, wrongfully incarcerated also encounter challenges of establishing themselves into the community again. Typically, these individuals have lost several, if not numerous years of their lives. In addition, some even lose their friends, and a chance to go to school and gain essential skills and employment. According to Mostaghel, one of the major challenges that exonerees face after being released into the society is the opportunity and ability to earn a reasonable and respectable livelihood (510). Such deficiencies in education, coupled with minimal or no previous or current work experience due to lengthy periods of wrongful incarcerations contribute to the difficulty the exonerees face in getting meaningful employment. Compounding the problem, many employers also hesitate to employ people with criminal records.

Compensation for Wrongfully Incarcerated Individuals in the United States

The emotional and economic suffering and other challenges that wrongfully convicted and incarcerated people face warrant their compensation upon release. In the United States, various measures have been put in place by the department of justice to facilitate how these people are compensated. Chunias and Aufgang advance that since 1914, scholars in the US argued that since all the society stakeholders have a common goal of “maintaining the public peace by the prosecution of crime . . . the loss should be borne by the community as a whole and not by the injured individual alone” (107). Based on this reasoning every State has sought to establish mechanisms and create compensation statutes except a few, to accord victims of wrongful incarcerations reparations

In 2004, the State of Massachusetts was the first one in the US to make a compensation statute providing a mechanism through which victims of wrongful incarcerations would be compensated (Chunias and Aufgang 108). The statute would provide with a mechanism for offering post-incarceration services coupled with monetary compensation to the wrongfully convicted persons once released. The wisdom of the Massachusetts statute creators is evident in that they considered both the financial and emotional wellbeing of the wrongfully incarcerated individuals during compensation. Financially, the statute provides that the State government should offer the exonerees “provides for monetary compensation up to $500,000, but it also allows courts to grant, in their discretion” (Chunias and Aufgang 108). More importantly, the statute further stipulates that the exonerees can be given “state services that are reasonable and necessary to address any deficiencies in the individual’s physical and emotional condition” resulting from having been convicted and incarcerated wrongfully (108).

The precedent set by the Massachusetts compensation statute for the wrongfully incarcerated pointed to the need for the government to recompense the wrongfully convicted individuals beyond financially only. The need to compensate them for the injuries that cannot be quantified monetarily was realized in that their process of being successfully integrated into the society is incorporated in the statute. The Massachusetts compensation statute specifically requires that all exonerees of wrongful conviction and incarceration are “…are also entitled to a fifty percent tuition reduction at any state community college or university” (Chunias and Aufgang 108).

Several US State governments followed the example of Massachusetts, by creating compensation statutes of their own. Louisiana and Vermont were among the first States to the same. A good example illustrating both financial and emotional support for exonerated wrongfully incarcerated persons is a statute on compensation by the government of Louisiana. The law provides that an wrongfully incarcerated person who has been exonerated must receive “…services such as job skills training for a year, medical and counseling services for three years, and state educational aid for five years” (Chunias and Aufgang 108). The statute does not only facilitate the integration of the individual into the society but also offers them an opportunity to make for what they might have lost in terms of self-development and enhancement. With regard to emotional well-being, the state of Vermont provides a more comprehensive offering that both Massachusetts and Louisiana. In 2007, Vermont enacted a compensation statute, which provided that wrongfully incarcerated individuals are eligible for ten years of Vermont Health Access Plan cover solely funded by the State (Chunias and Aufgang 108; Trivelli 262). In addition to this compensation, the State would provide these individuals with further assistance such as in facilitating service that would enhance reintegration into the society and offer physical and mental health care costs that might be incurred in the process. The services provided to the exonerees on top of the capped amounts of financial compensation reflect that the authorities realize the effects of wrongful incarceration and importance of both emotional and financial support.

Despite the exemplar initiatives to restore exonerees’ lives illustrated by Louisiana, Vermont and Massachusetts, systems for compensating wrongfully convicted individuals are far from perfect. According to Trivelli, only thirty states, including the federal system and District of Colombia offer the victims of wrongful incarceration some form of relief (259). Several other states, including Georgia, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Wyoming, Nevada, New Mexico, Hawaii, and Alaska among others lack compensation statutes. Some states provide wrongfully convicted and incarcerated individuals with economic relief only, disregarding health problems such as physical and emotional wellbeing. Examples of states providing only monetary compensation to exonerees include California, the District of Columbia, Washington, New York, Utah, Virginia, and Alabama among others. A state like Connecticut has no limit to the minimum or maximum amount that an exoneree can receive as economic relief. However, the compensation has to be based on damages incurred due to the wrongful incarceration, attorney’s fees, tuition, counseling, and employment funds (Trivelli 260).

State compensation statutes, whether covering only economic relief or economic, emotional and physical well-being have been shown to contain some shortcomings still. For instance, compensation statutes often limit recompense made to wrongfully incarcerated individuals through various constraints, sometimes even wholly barring recovery (Trivelli 264). Compensation in some states is even denied unless a pardon is granted. For instance, in the state of California, wrongfully convicted and incarcerated individuals can only claim for compensation if they had not pleaded guilty to protect other people from prosecution. Iowa and the District of Columbia would limit the right of exonerees to recovery if they pleaded guilty, irrespective of their innocence (263). Some of the limitations for recovery are justifiable, especially if the wrongfully incarcerated person had obstructed justice for others by protecting criminals from prosecution. However, the limitation of recovery due to exonerees having pled guilty is arguable in that they might have been coerced or threatened to admit guilt.

The limitations of recovery notwithstanding, several wrongfully incarcerated persons have been able to apply for compensation across various states successfully. The cases of Ralph Jacobs and Christopher Smith from Indiana provide with a good example to the fact that recovery limitations can be effectively challenged. Both individuals sued the City of Newcastle in the State of Indiana. The allegations presented was that they had been wrongfully forced by the to confess to crimes that they did not commit, leading to their conviction as murderers. After being incarcerated for two years into their sentence, they were exonerated. Smith was awarded $605 000 while Jacobs got $435 000 (Afshar 153). Several similar lawsuits have been successfully made across the US and settlements made. Other genuine claims have also failed, indicating the unreliability and ability of the department of justice to provide with the same. For instance, Dwayne Scruggs was wrongfully convicted and served his sentence for seventeen years. Although he had his criminal record expunged just one year after release, Scruggs was denied restitution by the United States Court of Appeals despite the determination of his false conviction (Afshar 156).

The inadequacies of compensation statutes notwithstanding, the approach provides the best approach to facilitating both the emotional and financial wellbeing of wrongfully convicted people. The necessity of state compensation statutes is evident when the inadequacies of alternative legal redresses available to exonerees are considered. The two main legal avenues getting wrongfully incarcerated people restituted include filing lawsuits or through the state legislature. Instead of just filing for recompense under state compensation statute, the exoneree can bring a lawsuit against the department of justice under the tort of laws in civil rights violations. Alternatively, they can draft private bills and attempt to have them passed by the state legislature (Afshar 139; Alschuler 923). The alternative approaches are more difficult to pursue since they pose numerous challenges such as being time-consuming, expensive, and often unsuccessful.

Conclusion

Wrongful convictions and incarcerations have significant harmful effects on individuals, even after being exonerated and freed into the society. Some of the effects of such experiences affect an individual’s financial and emotional wellbeing. Apart from suffering the trauma of the unjust treatment, most exonerees find it challenging to fit in the society due to psychological issues such as depression, anger, inability to relate to others positively and feeling isolated. Financially, the incarceration causes many of the exonerees to lose their livelihoods, property, and family. Getting a meaningful employment also proves difficult due to either lack of relevant skills due to lengthy stays in prison, or as a result of their criminal record. Considering all these factors, it is only fair that wrongly convicted and incarcerated people are compensated both financially and emotionally.

Exonerees have four main options for pursuing reparations after wrongful incarceration. Compensation statutes enacted by many states provide the best alternative, although private compensation bills, civil rights claims, and tort claims also offer avenues for reparations. Majority of states with compensation statutes provide financial compensation other services that might help improve the exonerees’ emotional well-being, such as healthcare covers. Overall, although none of these compensation approaches is ideal, exonerees of wrongful convictions are provided with a means of facilitating their integration in the society. None of the approaches, however, adequately restitutes exonerees to their previous emotional status before incarceration.

Works Cited

Afshar, Maryam. “Wrongfully Incarcerated and Never Fully Compensated: An Examination of Indiana's Failure to Indemnify Exonerated Inmates.” Valparaiso University Law Review, vol.50, no.1, 2015, pp.133-184.

Alschuler, Albert. “A Nearly Perfect System for Convicting the Innocent.” Albany Law Review, vol.79, no.3, 2016, pp.919-940.

Baumgartner, Frank, Saundra Westervelt and Kimberly Cook. Public Policy Responses to Wrongful Convictions. Carolina Academic Publishing. www.unc.edu/~fbaum/Innocence/BaumgartnerWesterveltCookPolicyResponses-2013.pdf

Chunias, Jennifer and Yael Aufgang. “Beyond Monetary Compensation: The Need for Comprehensive Services for the Wrongfully Convicted.” Boston College Third World Law Journal, vol.28, no.1, 2008, pp.104-128.

Mostaghel, Deborah. “Wrongly Incarcerated, Randomly Compensated-How to Fund Wrongful-Conviction Compensation Statutes.” Indiana Law Review, vol. 44, no.503, 2009, pp.504-544.

Sena, Matt. Burger Industry Analysis 2017 - Cost & Trends: Burger Industry In 2017 At Glance. Franchise Help, www.franchisehelp.com/industry-reports/burger-industry-report/. Accessed 16 October 2017.

Trivelli, Alanna. “Compensating the Wrongfully Convicted: A Proposal to Make Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Whole Again.” Richmond Journal of Law and The Public Interest, vol.19, no.3, 2016, pp.257-282.