November 7th, 2006


Does this make sense to anyone?

Can someone explain to me how this makes sense?

Specifically, how is it that the Supreme Court is leaning towards deciding that someone who has been falsely arrested and prosecuted has to sue the police for false arrest while the case is still in the courts? That pretty much guarantees this situation:

A bad cop plants evidence, arrests someone on that planted false evidence. Perhaps the cop thought he was doing the right thing, perhaps he was just trying to close a case quickly for a promotion, perhaps he's corrupt and throwing the arrest delibrately to the wrong guy. Doesn't matter for the purpose of this story, he just does so.

The wrong guy is put through trial with the falsified evidence convicting him. He then spends ten years in court appeals trying to prove his innocence, it is finally proven at the end that the evidence was, in fact, falsified.

The cop still gets away with it, since if the man had tried to sue for false arrest in the first two years, his guilty verdict would be used against him guaranteeing an automatic loss. Now, ten years down the line he can show the falsified evidence, and thus that the cop planted evidence, but now it's "too late". Sorry, the cop can laugh happily, and feel free to continue planting evidence, since, well, he'll never be held accountable for it.

Further, the guy who has now spent a third of his life in jail instead of doing more productive things can't sue for compensation. He could have sued for compensation, y'know, BEFORE he knew how long he'd spend in jail... but we already went over the unlikelihood that he'd have been given that compensation at that time anyway.

How on earth does this make sense? Like, why is the Supreme Court leaning towards upholding this injustice?
  • Current Music
    (Are You) The One That I've Be-Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds-The Best of Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds