Originally Posted by Boyo
But he hadn't in fact killed somebody. The man he was said to have killed, was very much alive. The convicting was wrong, as was subsequent imprisonment.
The fact that he was innocent and the conviction was wrong is not the subject here, in fact it is pretty much irrelative, I am talking law sense here. The fact that he got convicted and did his time is what the whole idea is about. The public order rule"one can not be convicted for the same crime more than once" is applied. It dose not matter if it make sense or not, but it dose apply, it dose not say if the conviction was wrong or write, it just says that if one got convicted for a crime, should not be convicted for the same crime again! I know it dose not make sense at all especially in the case we are discussing here but law dose not really represent sense in it's finest.
Wouldn't really matter all that much. The important part is that the verdict would be overturned and the man in question found not-guilty.
mmmmm...I believe this is another case. If the court found the "suspect of the crime" innocent, then there is no conviction to start with. This is a whole different story brcause there is no crime at all. I am talking about a crime and a man the court found guilty and got punished for a thing that he "did not do it" He is innocent? yes. Is he innocent infront of the state, NO and that what matters because the public order is the in other words the state order.
But that was a wrong conviction. As soon as that error became know, the verdict would be overturned.
Again, even if the conviction was totally wrong, still he was convicted. I am talking about a dude who "did" his time and finished his punishment in jail, this is can not be overturned by the same judicial system that issued the conviction.
Of course there is. If someone is wrongfully convicted, that convicting can be overturned and the person in question found innocent. That he would commit a murder upon his release is a different matter, for which he would then have to stand trial again.
That is a totally different story again. If he commited "another" crime, then yes, send his arse to jail again for what he did. The question is: What if he committed the crime that he was in jail for?!