NationStates Jolt Archive

BBC Linkey (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6449495.stm)



Does anyone else think "WTF?!!?"

WTF

W00t, this thread is mine now!

BBC Linkey (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6449495.stm)

Three men who spent years in jail after being wrongly convicted of murder will have to pay for their prison board and lodgings, Law Lords have ruled.
Brothers Vincent and Michael Hickey of Birmingham, spent 18 years in jail for paperboy Carl Bridgewater's murder.

Michael O'Brien from Cardiff spent ten years in jail for a separate murder.

The three were deducted money from their compensation for what lawyers called "living expenses" but what the court agreed was for life necessities.

Judges ruled by a four to one majority that they must pay back 25% of their compensation.

The three men had appealed against an earlier Court of Appeal ruling the Independent Assessor was entitled to deduct their compensation to reflect the necessities of life which they would have to buy from wages if they were free.

Their lawyers had argued it was wrong to expect people wrongly imprisoned to pay for what is effectively their "board and lodgings".

Vincent Hickey, 49, and Michael Hickey, 42, of Birmingham, were jailed in 1979 over Carl's murder at Yew Tree Farm.

They had their convictions quashed at the Court of Appeal in 1997.

Michael Hickey was awarded £990,000 in compensation and Vincent Hickey £506,220, subject to the deductions.

Michael O'Brien spent 10 years in prison after being wrongly convicted in 1988 of the murder of a Cardiff newsagent.

He was awarded £670,000 subject to similar deductions.


Does anyone else think "WTF?!!?"

Here in the US, if you're wrongly convicted and spend that much time in prison, the state usually quietly settles with you - you get a check for a large sum of money for your trouble, and a promise not to sue the shit out of them.

WTF

W00t, this thread is mine now!

Damn OP Theives....

Absolutely hilarious.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's complete bollocks. But that our greatest legal minds think it's fair to charge rent for people who've been falsely imprisoned? Classic. Monty Python had nothing on that :D

unless UK prisons are like 5 star hotels...WTF

Obviously this is to discourage potential freeloaders from getting wrongly convicted in order to get a free ride the UK prison system. You don't want to be billed, don't get wrongly convicted. It's that simple.
It's sarcasm, you fool!
:rolleyes:

Yeah, make sure you don't look like that other guy on CCTV.

Bloody doppelgangers corrupting our legal system, wasting my tax quids!

Obviously this is to discourage potential freeloaders from getting wrongly convicted in order to get a free ride the UK prison system. You don't want to be billed, don't get wrongly convicted. It's that simple.
It's sarcasm, you fool!
:rolleyes:

Yeah, make sure you don't look like that other guy on CCTV.

BBC Linkey (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6449495.stm)



Does anyone else think "WTF?!!?"

No because that would be a mild reaction to display how incredulous I am.

I don't these people wanted to stay in that nice government hotel for 18 years, so why are they paying?

:upyours: :mad: No they shouldnt have to pay because it is not there fault that they were wrongfully accused the government makes mistakes and we the people should have to pay for their mistakes

I wonder if this will be even more unaminous than my last poll...

I wonder if this will be even more unaminous than my last poll...

What's the point of a unanimous poll? You should post something more controversial, that starts a 4000 post thread in a single day.

What's the point of a unanimous poll? You should post something more controversial, that starts a 4000 post thread in a single day.

Meh - this way we can sit round like a bunch of grumpy old men on the porch bitcing about the world.

Besides - all the contraversal topics have been driven into the ground so many times already - Abortion, Gun Rights, Men vs Women, Christianity, Islam, Evolution....

Meh - this way we can sit round like a bunch of grumpy old men on the porch bitcing about the world.

Besides - all the contraversal topics have been driven into the ground so many times already - Abortion, Gun Rights, Men vs Women, Christianity, Islam, Evolution....

So mix it up a bit - gun rights vs. Christianity, for example. :p

If they can be charged rent then surely they should be allowed sue the prison service for unlawful imprisonment.

If they can be charged rent then surely they should be allowed sue the prison service for unlawful imprisonment.

The rent is being deducted from their compensation for unlawful imprisonment.


I wonder how this would relate to kidnappers...

The rent is being deducted from their compensation for unlawful imprisonment.
Ah, comprende


I wonder how this would relate to kidnappers...

Imagine being sued by your kidnapper for room and board........:eek:

So, do they have to pay for the buttfuckery, too?

Absolutely hilarious.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's complete bollocks. But that our greatest legal minds think it's fair to charge rent for people who've been falsely imprisoned? Classic. Monty Python had nothing on that :D

Indeed. :)

You guys have to read this more closely. They are not "being charged rent". Read what it says.

Let's say every one of those guys would have made, had they not been in prison, X dollars (ok pounds) a year.

Their lawyers aregue, they make X a year, you kept them in prison for 10 years, you owe them 10X.

OK, you owe them 10X.

But wait a minute, prison officials say, they would have NEVER made 10X. Every year that they WOULD have made X a year on the outside, they would have also HAD to pay Y amount in basic living expenses. They would have had to pay for food, rent, heat, electricity, all of that. They would have NEVER made X. Sure X was their salary, but everyone has necessary life expenses when they're living on the outside. So we can't give them X, they would have never made X, they would have incured SOME expenses, had they not been in jail. Those expenses would total Y.

So they would not in fact MAKE X a year, they'd make X minus yearly expenses, Y.

So X-Y is what they end up with AFTER they handle necessary expenses.

Do any of you keep your entire salary? No, once you get your salary YOU HAVE TO PAY BILLS WITH IT. Which is exactly what was said here. We can not fairly compensate them for exactly what they would have made if they were not in jail, for if they were not in jail they ALSO would have been paying bills, and we have to figure out what the cost of the bils they would have paid would have been (25% seems a nice number) to figure out what they, in actuality, would have ended up with, because NOBODY keeps their FULL salary, everyone has life expenses.

So no, and great misinterpretation. They weren't being charged rent for being in prison, they had the cost of what there expenses would have been had they been free, deducted from their compensation.

Which is not only quite reasonable, is fairly typical in any sort of compensation scheme. Give me what I would have made, less what I would have had to pay.

If they can be charged rent

*sigh* seriously, READ THE THING.

entitled to deduct their compensation to reflect the necessities of life which they would have to buy from wages if they were free.

They ARE NOT BEING CHARGED RENT FROM THE PRISON.

They are having deducted from their compensation the rent they would have had to pay (as well as all the other bills) had they not BEEN in prison.

What the prisoners are saying is "I made 100,000 a year, so you need to give me 100,000 a year"

And the prison is saying "yes, but, if you made that 100,000 a year, you would have paid 40,000 in rent, another 1,000 in electricity, 20,000 in food, and 10,000 in other miscelanious expenses. So at the end of the year, you would have spent 71,000 in general life expenses, so we can't give you 100,000 when after the end of a year, you only would have had LEFT 29,000. So we'll give you 29,000, exactly what you WOULD HAVE HAD in reality, had you been free"

This is, in fact, quite reasonable, and how compensation schemes are designed. Yes, they are owed what they lost. But from what they lost they also have to deduct expenses they would have spent, but didn't have to.

You guys have to read this more closely. They are not "being charged rent". Read what it says.

Let's say every one of those guys would have made, had they not been in prison, X dollars (ok pounds) a year.

Their lawyers aregue, they make X a year, you kept them in prison for 10 years, you owe them 10X.

OK, you owe them 10X.

But wait a minute, prison officials say, they would have NEVER made 10X. Every year that they WOULD have made X a year on the outside, they would have also HAD to pay Y amount in basic living expenses. They would have had to pay for food, rent, heat, electricity, all of that. They would have NEVER made X. Sure X was their salary, but everyone has necessary life expenses when they're living on the outside. So we can't give them X, they would have never made X, they would have incured SOME expenses, had they not been in jail. Those expenses would total Y.

So they would not in fact MAKE X a year, they'd make X minus yearly expenses, Y.

So X-Y is what they end up with AFTER they handle necessary expenses.

Do any of you keep your entire salary? No, once you get your salary YOU HAVE TO PAY BILLS WITH IT. Which is exactly what was said here. We can not fairly compensate them for exactly what they would have made if they were not in jail, for if they were not in jail they ALSO would have been paying bills, and we have to figure out what the cost of the bils they would have paid would have been (25% seems a nice number) to figure out what they, in actuality, would have ended up with, because NOBODY keeps their FULL salary, everyone has life expenses.

So no, and great misinterpretation. They weren't being charged rent for being in prison, they had the cost of what there expenses would have been had they been free, deducted from their compensation.

Which is not only quite reasonable, is fairly typical in any sort of compensation scheme. Give me what I would have made, less what I would have had to pay.

It's arguable that they could have made the money, and lived with their parents.

Which is not only quite reasonable, is fairly typical in any sort of compensation scheme. Give me what I would have made, less what I would have had to pay.

So they're only entitled to what they would have earnt on the outside world, less expenses. Right. Prison is just as nice an existence as living on the outside world, and the fact that a fuck-up took away 18 years of their lives means nothing. Yep.

It's arguable that they could have made the money, and lived with their parents.

Were they at the time? Did they even have parents? If the people were living on their own at the time it stretches belief that they suddenly would have uprooted their lives and moved back in with mom and dad, who may or may not be alive, who would have let them live rent free.

It's arguable, but a pretty shitty argument. Moreover they are having deducted 25%. I don't know where you live, but 25% of your salary going to bills and expenses? Really? My rent ALONE is 35% of my salary.

So they're only entitled to what they would have earnt on the outside world, less expenses. Right. Prison is just as nice an existence as living on the outside world, and the fact that a fuck-up took away 18 years of their lives means nothing. Yep.

no, they are probably also entitled to emotional trauma compensation as well. However we don't know if that was offered, or to the extent. We only know that they subtracted 25% of what was to be their pure salaried compensation.

Any speculation beyond that is pointless. I'm not saying that's all theyr'e entitled to, but when it comes to determining how much of their INCOME LOSS they are entitled to, yes, they are entitled to what they would have made, less expenses.

Whether they are entitled to OTHER forms of compensation is totally irrelevant to the fact that when determining income loss they are entitled to, they are entitled to what they would have made, less expenses.

So, do they have to pay for the buttfuckery, too?

The buggery is free, all part of the fine 5 star service at Her Majesty's Prisons. High Tea is served after your first good rogering to guarantee your assimilation into this fine social service.

See our money back guarantee for "extended stay" guests.

*sigh* seriously, READ THE THING.

entitled to deduct their compensation to reflect the necessities of life which they would have to buy from wages if they were free.

They ARE NOT BEING CHARGED RENT FROM THE PRISON.

They are having deducted from their compensation the rent they would have had to pay (as well as all the other bills) had they not BEEN in prison.

What the prisoners are saying is "I made 100,000 a year, so you need to give me 100,000 a year"

And the prison is saying "yes, but, if you made that 100,000 a year, you would have paid 40,000 in rent, another 1,000 in electricity, 20,000 in food, and 10,000 in other miscelanious expenses. So at the end of the year, you would have spent 71,000 in general life expenses, so we can't give you 100,000 when after the end of a year, you only would have had LEFT 29,000. So we'll give you 29,000, exactly what you WOULD HAVE HAD in reality, had you been free"

This is, in fact, quite reasonable, and how compensation schemes are designed. Yes, they are owed what they lost. But from what they lost they also have to deduct expenses they would have spent, but didn't have to.

Right, I get it. Don't give yourself a heart attack or anything.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/motivator5509433.jpg

Well, in the 1990s I wrote a software program that did wage compensation using a formula used by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The formula has had the force of law for over a decade in the US now.

It is used a lot in other lawsuits, to see what you would have earned if you had lived, if you hadn't been disabled, etc.

There is no factor for "what you would have spent". You get all the money.

two things. First, certain statutory schemes have specific overriding provision of common law. You are dealing with a specific statute. That statute may, or may not, have SPECIFIC law that says you avoid things like reduction of compensation and calculation of present value exception. I dunno. It might, you're dealing with a statute which may have very specific provision.

In general, when calculating damages, you reduce by expenses. Again, in general. Absent a specific law which may alter this, this is how it's done.

Secondly, congratulations. That's in the US. Completely irrelevant to law based in britain.

Were they at the time? Did they even have parents? If the people were living on their own at the time it stretches belief that they suddenly would have uprooted their lives and moved back in with mom and dad, who may or may not be alive, who would have let them live rent free.

It's arguable, but a pretty shitty argument. Moreover they are having deducted 25%. I don't know where you live, but 25% of your salary going to bills and expenses? Really? My rent ALONE is 35% of my salary.

Well, in the 1990s I wrote a software program that did wage compensation using a formula used by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The formula has had the force of law for over a decade in the US now.

It is used a lot in other lawsuits, to see what you would have earned if you had lived, if you hadn't been disabled, etc.

There is no factor for "what you would have spent". You get all the money.

Arthais is quite excitable.

I have to make a point of explaining things forcefully when people rattle on for pages about the contents of the article without, apparently, having read it.

One would hope I wouldn't have to be and people would read before commenting, but eh.

Looking at the awards given and the time served it looks like the compensation is also for loss of freedom during that time - either that or they were in very well paying careers.

Yeah, looked at that. 2 million dollars for 18 years? After expenses? Not saying that truly compensates for the lack of ones freedom, but that's probably a lot more than he WOULD have made purely based on salary.

Right, I get it. Don't give yourself a heart attack or anything.

Arthais is quite excitable.

Were they at the time? Did they even have parents? If the people were living on their own at the time it stretches belief that they suddenly would have uprooted their lives and moved back in with mom and dad, who may or may not be alive, who would have let them live rent free.

It's arguable, but a pretty shitty argument. Moreover they are having deducted 25%. I don't know where you live, but 25% of your salary going to bills and expenses? Really? My rent ALONE is 35% of my salary.

Looking at the awards given and the time served it looks like the compensation is also for loss of freedom during that time - either that or they were in very well paying careers.

It seems harsh to deduct these expenses from the compensation for matters other than simple lost income.

It also looks like they are deducting an average of £13,750/year from one of the guys. This is somewhat more than the marginal cost of living.

Which is not only quite reasonable, is fairly typical in any sort of compensation scheme. Give me what I would have made, less what I would have had to pay.
Typical or not it is unreasonable.
We have no way of knowing what their costs would have been, how frugal or spend-thrifty they would have been, nor how canny they might have been at saving and investing. The only thing we can determine is that not only were they not free to earn the money, they were not free to spend it either. While it's true they would probably have spent money (had they been free) on say rent, it's also true they probably wouldnt have chosen to spend their rent money on a prison cell, while they probably would have had to pay to eat, I doubt they'd have chosen to fund prison food given the freedom (wrongfully taken from them) to choose otherwise.

It's outrageous to wrongfully keep a person in prison boiler suits, on prison food in a prison cell for years on end and then to pay them less compensation than the money you prevented them from earning.. The fact that they would otherwise have had the opportunity to spend their earnings on accomodation their imprisonment prevented them living in, food their imprisonment didnt give them the opportunity of eating, and clothes their imprisonment kept them from wearing, makes them seem more entitled to compensation, not less.

In short, sure they would have spent money, at their discretion on the goods and services they chose, but they were prevented from doing this ythrough no fault of their own.

So no, and great misinterpretation. They weren't being charged rent for being in prison, they had the cost of what there expenses would have been had they been free, deducted from their compensation.

Which is not only quite reasonable, is fairly typical in any sort of compensation scheme. Give me what I would have made, less what I would have had to pay.

Then we'd better charge them taxes, too. On that sum of money it's easily going to fall into the 22% bracket spread over the years (it'd actually make the 40% bracket easily enough, especially for the guy getting £990k, but we'll ignore that because we're also ignoring the chunks that fit in the lower brackets). And don't forget National Insurance, because prisoners get healthcare too, and now they're released they're going to get their state pension once they retire, so that's another 11%.

What does that get us to... 25 + 22 + 11 = 58% deductions. That's much fairer, I'm sure you'll all agree.

Maybe we should fit all cells with electricity and water meters, just in case anyone's wrongly imprisoned? That way we can make sure we charge them for exactly what they've used on their release and payment of compensation. It's only fair.

I'm going to kidnap someone and then charge a taxi fee for the drive, a lodging fee for putting them up and per diem for food. Plus all that tape and rope I used up. Health care. Babysitting. Prostitution fee for when I make them see me naked with my parts tucked. I could make a mint.

/joke (I haven't caught up in the thread yet.

So, do they have to pay for the buttfuckery, too?

Na, that was on the house. Probably because the state didn't directly provide it.

You guys have to read this more closely. They are not "being charged rent". Read what it says.
*snip*

You might as well keep this post handy...as the thread progresses, you'll have to repost it again, and again, because people are just going to jump to the conclusion listed in the title and run with it.

Facts are not nearly as interesting, being the main reason for that.

Arthais is quite excitable.

Excitable boy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eUsSXXc8wU)?

1) It's beyond annoying when people don't actually read the source, and just take the OP's word for what happened.
2) It's worse than that when people feel the need to show off their ignorance of the law, with the mistaken belief that said ignorance should pass without comment.

not only should they have to pay for their board and lodgings, but also for the costs of the investigation into now finding out the real people responsible for the murder. Murder investigations costs a lot, y'know.

Also, they should pay compensation towards any person or persons who might have been attacked during those 18 years by the real criminals. Logic here is that if they hadn't been falsely imprisoned, the real villians would have been caught and thus they would not have committed any further crimes over that 18 year period. Thus these innocent schlubs are in some real way responsible towards any other victims of the real perpertrators crimes.

And of course they should also pay compensation towards the family of the murdered man who no doubt are suffering from the stress and grief of now knowing that the killers actually got away scot free. Their pain must be tremendous and it's only just that these wrongfully imprisoned people compensate them, as their sucessfully overturning of their sentences must have reopened old wounds etc

And finally, the govt should announce an inquiry into making sure this doesn't happen again (the compensation, not the wrongful imprisonment) and an across the board increase of 4p to the gallon in petrol tax.

That's only fair.

You guys have to read this more closely. They are not "being charged rent". Read what it says.

Let's say every one of those guys would have made, had they not been in prison, X dollars (ok pounds) a year.

Their lawyers aregue, they make X a year, you kept them in prison for 10 years, you owe them 10X.

OK, you owe them 10X.

But wait a minute, prison officials say, they would have NEVER made 10X. Every year that they WOULD have made X a year on the outside, they would have also HAD to pay Y amount in basic living expenses. They would have had to pay for food, rent, heat, electricity, all of that. They would have NEVER made X. Sure X was their salary, but everyone has necessary life expenses when they're living on the outside. So we can't give them X, they would have never made X, they would have incured SOME expenses, had they not been in jail. Those expenses would total Y.

So they would not in fact MAKE X a year, they'd make X minus yearly expenses, Y.

So X-Y is what they end up with AFTER they handle necessary expenses.

Do any of you keep your entire salary? No, once you get your salary YOU HAVE TO PAY BILLS WITH IT. Which is exactly what was said here. We can not fairly compensate them for exactly what they would have made if they were not in jail, for if they were not in jail they ALSO would have been paying bills, and we have to figure out what the cost of the bils they would have paid would have been (25% seems a nice number) to figure out what they, in actuality, would have ended up with, because NOBODY keeps their FULL salary, everyone has life expenses.

So no, and great misinterpretation. They weren't being charged rent for being in prison, they had the cost of what there expenses would have been had they been free, deducted from their compensation.

Which is not only quite reasonable, is fairly typical in any sort of compensation scheme. Give me what I would have made, less what I would have had to pay.

Except in cases where I have to be in a certain place as required by my "job" they do pay my living expenses. All of them. Cleaning my clothes. I get a per diem for food and various amenities. I get lodging expense reimbursed. Travel. Vehicle. All tools. All of it. Every bit.

On top of that, in exchange for getting to keep all of it, they got to not have any freedoms for 18 years. Sounds like a fair trade to me. Sorry, but if you falsely imprison me, not only should you compensate my salary for the time I was imprisoned but you should eat the expenses as a bonus for my lack of freedom.

You might as well keep this post handy...as the thread progresses, you'll have to repost it again, and again, because people are just going to jump to the conclusion listed in the title and run with it.

Facts are not nearly as interesting, being the main reason for that.

Except he's wrong. Living expenses would not be charged to you for any job that required you to leave home. You'd be reimbursed. And it's likely that these gentlemen still had to pay for any outstanding bills, any standing leases, etc. So their living expenses, much like when you travel for a job, don't just dry up. Any living expenses incurred while actually at whatever location your job requires are reimbursed with rare exception.

This is bull. They spent years in prison, likely raped and beaten by inmates if British prisons are anything like American prisons, and this is being deducted from their compensation as if they lived in a good house eating good food all that time? Prison food can't be THAT expensive.

Prison is not five star treatment. I don't think it's any stars. It's five turd treatment. If a rich person lost most of his money in frivilous lawsuits and the stock market and had to rent a crappy apartment, do you charge him 500 times the rent all because that's what he WOULD have spent had he not lost his wealth to ambulance chasers?

And it's likely that these gentlemen still had to pay for any outstanding bills, any standing leases, etc.

You would think this would be an argument for THEIR LAWYERS to make. More to point, we have no way of knowing whether or not the few bills that they'd have to pay that were outstanding at the time they went to prison were calculated.

What was calculated was bills that WOULD HAVE existed but DID NOT. Not bills and obligations that already existed.

Expenses that they would have occured, but didn't. All your talk of "but when I travel my company does this" is irrelevant Yes, some jobs do pay some bills in some situations.

It doesn't matter. You still DO have bills, you still DO have expenses. You still DO have to pay. And the calculation was to determine what bills they would have had to pay, but did not.

The fact that they would not have had to pay SOME bills is irrelevant, that goes into the pile of "bills they wouldn't have had to pay". If their lawyers were good, and they had situations in which they could have expected some bills to be covered for them, then it's the lawyer's job to argue that.

THe fact that this does not seem to be the case suggests either that it is not, in fact, the case, or they have bad lawyers in this regard.

If you want to tell me I'm wrong with how it works, you go to law school, you sit in a tort class, you read up on how damages are handled, both specific compensatory, non specific compensatory, punitive, and nominal damages, you read the case law on this, THEN come back here.

The fact is that the description I gave is an accurate reflection of the law.

This is bull. They spent years in prison, likely raped and beaten by inmates if British prisons are anything like American prisons, and this is being deducted from their compensation as if they lived in a good house eating good food all that time? Prison food can't be THAT expensive.

Prison is not five star treatment. I don't think it's any stars. It's five turd treatment. If a rich person lost most of his money in frivilous lawsuits and the stock market and had to rent a crappy apartment, do you charge him 500 times the rent all because that's what he WOULD have spent had he not lost his wealth to ambulance chasers?

Read....the....article...first.

Then talk. What you are saying is in no way indicative of the actual facts.

It seems harsh to deduct these expenses from the compensation for matters other than simple lost income.

The problem is, there are three types of damages relevant to this. Specific compensatory, non specific compensatory and punitive.

We'll ignore punitive for the moment.

Specific compensatory damages are direct monetary calculations. MOney I have lost in some way. Money from lost wages. Money to fix my car, money to pay the hospital. You did something wrong to me and in some way that cost me money, you owe me that money, minus any money you may have inadvertantly saved me.

For example, let's say you crack up my car. I now have to get that car fixed, and pay for a rental. Now let's say I rent a car from a very friendly rent a car place, and they include with the rental a gas card. I can put as much gas in that car as I want, and I don't have to pay a penny for it (zip car does this for example).

You have cost me the cost of the repairs, and the cost of the rental. So my costs are repairs + rental. HOWEVER I'm not paying any gas. If I had the use of my car, I'd be putting gas in my car. Since I have this rental that pays for my gas, I am not paying for gas, so I am saving all the money I would have paid in gas.

So the money I was ACTUALLY forced to pay out was cost of repairs + cost of rental - cost of gas I would have bought but didn't.

That's the total sum that the damage to my car has cost me. Cost of repairs + cost of rental - cost of gas (because I am not paying for gas but I would have).

Then let's say I get sent to the hospital. They bill me. You owe me that bill. But I have insurance and that insurance reimburses me some. So you owe me cost of bill - insurance pay out, which is of course another way of saying you owe me for the deductable.

Now let's also say because of my hospital stay, I lose my job. I am thus unemployed and begin to look for a new job. You owe me the wages I have lost. But let's say while unemployed I go on unemployment. It's not the same as my salary, in fact considerably less, but you don't owe me my full wages.

You owe me my lost wages while I was unemployed - unemployment benefits. Now let's say I find a new job after some time, but it also pays less. You still owe me the difference.

So you owe me:

for my car: repairs + rental - cost of gas
for my hospital stay: bill - insurance payout
for my wages: money lost while on unemployment - money gained while on unemployment + continued wages - difference in wages between old job and new job.

All this is SPECIFIC compensatory damages. This is money you took directly out of my pocket. In fact, if I have any loans or debt which I have not paid off, but I would have paid off, you can in fact owe me any interest on that deb that has accumulated + any fees for non payment.

This is all specific stuff, money I have lost, or money I would have gained but did not, had it not been for you.

But there are non specific compensatory damages too. Let's say as a result of my accident, I lose a foot. Now the loss of the foot doesn't really COST me anything (except, as mentioned, the hospital stay, and any equipment I must purchase to stay mobile, and any rehabilitation, all of which are specific compensatory damages). I do not lose money for not having my foot.

But yet, I am not whole. I have lost a part of me. You took a part of me away from me. Let's say i love to jog, and run marathons, and I can not do this anymore. You have taken a pleasure of life away from me. It's difficult to say exactly what my foot is worth in terms of money, what my love of jogging is worth. You can not give me back my foot, you can not specifically compensate me for what I have lost. So we come up with some figure, you can't give me back my foot, but you can pay me for the loss of that foot, the loss of the enjoyment I gained. Because you are not compensating me for a specific dollar amount, you cost me a dollar you give me a dollar, but rather giving me money for the general loss of my foot and my pleasure.

Let's say also that I will forever feel pain where my foot used to be. We can't quantify, in dollar amounts, exactly what that pain is worth, and you can't take it from me, but you can pay me to compensate, pay me something for my pain and my suffering.

This is non specific compensatory damages. You still compensate me for the loss of my foot, and the pain I endure, but I haven't really lost MONEY, so it's not a specific I cost you a dollar I pay you a dollar scheme.

This is non specific compensatory damages.

Now there are three possibilities here. Either the payouts these prisoners received were straight up specific compensatory, and they received no non specific compensatory damages for the loss of their freedom. This is wrong and unfair.

Second, they may have recieved both specific and non specific, and the 25% was taken off the sum total of that. THis is also unfair since mitigation shouldn't lessen non specific compensatory damages.

OR they were paid specific compensatory damages, which were reduced because of mitigation, and on top of that paid non specific compensatory damages.

We don't know. because they were paid rather high amounts I believe there probably is non specific compensation in there. All we know is, that after adjustment they made X. We don't know if that adjustment was part of the entire money earned, or only part of the specific compensatory damages. My guess is the second, that the specific damages were reduced due to mitigation, and on top of that they added general non specific damages.

Punitive damages are a whole other monster.

If you want to tell me I'm wrong with how it works, you go to law school, you sit in a tort class, you read up on how damages are handled, both specific compensatory, non specific compensatory, punitive, and nominal damages, you read the case law on this, THEN come back here.

The fact is that the description I gave is an accurate reflection of the law.

I don't think Jocabia is trying to tell you how the law works. I believe he is making a statement on how he thinks it should work, particularly in a case like this.

I don't think Jocabia is trying to tell you how the law works. I believe he is making a statement on how he thinks it should work, particularly in a case like this.

The problem with this sort of commentary, is that assumptions are necessarily being made about how the law works. Someone might want the law to work in a specific way, not realising that on another level, it is actually performing exactly the way that person would want.

Arthais has laid out why the deducations are not actually unjust, because they are simply a factor of a particular calculation...not a deduction from the whole amount owed to these people. That is simply how that particular calculation works. That does not mean that there are no other kinds of damages available.

I think that's my biggest complaint when people comment on the law. You can not accurately critique it without understanding how it works in practice. A whole lot more is taken into account, and factored into cases like this, than most people seem to understand. The outcomes are not (generally speaking) nearly as out of whack with social expectations as people seem to think.

I don't think Jocabia is trying to tell you how the law works. I believe he is making a statement on how he thinks it should work, particularly in a case like this.

Perhaps. But as I said, we don't know where the awards COME from. The complaint seems to be "well they suffered, so the prisons should cut them a break on this 25%, after all they spent years in jail falsely"

Except, we can't say that. We're talking about two entirely seperate pools of money. Specific damages, and non specific damages. They are two entirely seperate things. You can't increase specific damages for general compensation of distress and loss of freedom.

That isn't what specific damages are for. Now, DO they deserve general compensatory damages for the loss of their freedom? Absolutly. But you can't go "well, cut them a break on that 25% to compensate them for that". Loss of their freedom falls under the umbrella of general, non specific compensatory damages.

Lost wages falls under the umbrella of specific compensatory damages.

Two entirely seperate things. You can't give him more specific damages than he deserves because he ALSO deserves non specific damages. Specific damages are just that, specific. Direct money lost. That's all it is allowed to give you, the exact money you had lost. To throw in general money for the loss of freedom would be to add to one damage scheme that belongs somewhere else.

YES, they deserve general compensation for their loss of freedom, but that should come in the form of general, non specific compensatory damages, NOT specific compensatory damages. Specific damages are...well...specific, and don't include that kind of loss.

Other things do, and they should get those other things. They shouldn't get it through THIS however.

The problem is it's a knee jerk reaction. What this is talking about, the ONLY thing this is talking about, is compensating them for the money lost. That's it. This isn't about the pain and suffering of being in jail. This compensation, it seems, is ONLY for money lost. And when you talk about money lost for being in jail you MUST also talk about money saved for being in jail.

And this is where the knee jerk reaction comes in. I say "money saved for being in jail" and people say "but, but, THEY WERE IN JAIL!" Yes, yes they were. ANd the deserve compensation for their loss of freedom. They do NOT deserve to have that compensation come in the form of compensation for lost wages.

Those are two entirely seperate forms of compensation, and must be kept, and discussed, seperately.

That does not mean that there are no other kinds of damages available.

Bingo. As I said, two forms of damages available. Specific and non specific. Hell, there may also be punitives.

But non specific isn't at issue here, it's not being discussed here. We're not discussing whether they deserve money for the loss of their freedom. We're not discussing whether they deserve money for the emotional pain.

THIS discussion, THIS compensation is about one thing, lost money. And the fact is, absent any loss of freedom, absent any emotional pain, while they were in jail they were not paying rent, they were not paying for food, they were not paying for heat or electricity.

If we need to calculate the money they lost (and that is ALL this discussion is about, the money they lost) we need to figure out what they saved by being in jail. And were they not in jail they would have been paying for rent, for food, for heat and electricity.

So when we figure out what they lost, we must ALSO figure out what they saved. And frankly, 25% is pretty low, I know personally my rent food and utilities makes up a whole lot more than 25% of my salary. So we deduct what they saved when figuring out the MONEY they lost.

Figuring out what their loss of freedom and emotional distress is a whole other ballgame, and a whole other calculation, and is not, in any way, related to THIS kind of damages.

OK I'm being a bit obtuse, so let me explain. There are two forms of damages. Specific damages (money lost) and general damages (compensation for loss of freedom, emotional distress, pain and suffering etc etc).

Let's say you are a young child in school, and a fairly bright one. Now the day before report cards are due, you sit down and figure out with all your grades, that you are getting a B in math, and a B in science

But the next day your report card comes in but instead of you B in math and B in science it says you have a C in science C in math.

Let math be specific damages and science be general damages.

So you complain, you say "hey, you made a mistake. As a result of your mistake you gave me a C in science and math. I was supposed to get a B in both. You owe me Bs"

And the school goes "oh, heavens, we made a mistake, we owe you Bs". The next day you get your report card.

And on that card it says a B in math. Great, good, a B is exactly what you deserve. But it still lists a C in science.

The argument of people on this board have been "hey, they still have her grade in science screwed up, they should raise her grade in math to an A to compensate, because an A and a C are the same average as two Bs, and because they made a mistake and gave her Cs in both, they should give her an A in one".

No, that's stupid. Why? Because she doesn't deserve an A. The school messed up and gave her Cs, so they should fix BOTH errors. They should fix BOTH grades. They shouldn't give her an A that she doesn't deserve to make up for the B in an ENTIRELY UNRELATED SUBJECT that she didn't get.

They should fix BOTH grades. That's my point. You can't give them more specific damages than they deserve to compensate for things that should be compensated with by general damages. Yes, they deserve general damages, they deserve compensation for that.

They should not however earn mre specific damages than they deserve. And I am not cold hearted or assholey to suggest this. They deserve exactly what they deserve in specific damages.

On TOP of this they deserve general damages as well. But again, two entirely seperate things, and you can't say let's fudge the calculation on specific damages to in effect give them general damages without actually giving them general damages.

Yes they deserve it, but they deserve it in the form of general damages compensation, not fudging the calculations of specific damages.

Welcome to Britain, Ladies and Gentlemen. This is sodding illogical though. The state should recompense them greatly for having robbed them 18 years of their life, and should be apologising profusely for having done so. Not forcing them to pay back a quarter what I daresay will be a meagre remuneration in any case.

What right, in light of their being wrongly convicted, does the Judicial system have to oblige them to pay for the cock-up made the judiciary?

You would think this would be an argument for THEIR LAWYERS to make. More to point, we have no way of knowing whether or not the few bills that they'd have to pay that were outstanding at the time they went to prison were calculated.

What was calculated was bills that WOULD HAVE existed but DID NOT. Not bills and obligations that already existed.

Expenses that they would have occured, but didn't. All your talk of "but when I travel my company does this" is irrelevant Yes, some jobs do pay some bills in some situations.

It doesn't matter. You still DO have bills, you still DO have expenses. You still DO have to pay. And the calculation was to determine what bills they would have had to pay, but did not.

Except, he didn't still have bills. He didn't still have expenses. His expenses were covered by the state at their fault, not his. If I forced you to stay in my hotel, could I also force you to pay for it? The reasons companies pay expenses is because they require you to travel and stay at a particular place then they are responsible for paying for that place. In this case, the requirement of using those facilities was much greater than would normally be forced upon you by a business, so their burden should be more, not less.

In this example the state benefits by the fact that they used their own facilities. If they forced me to stay in a hotel and miss my job they would be responsible for the cost of the hotel and the cost of missing work. They wouldn't be able to expect me to pay for the hotel they required me to stay in.





The fact that they would not have had to pay SOME bills is irrelevant, that goes into the pile of "bills they wouldn't have had to pay". If their lawyers were good, and they had situations in which they could have expected some bills to be covered for them, then it's the lawyer's job to argue that.

THe fact that this does not seem to be the case suggests either that it is not, in fact, the case, or they have bad lawyers in this regard.

If you want to tell me I'm wrong with how it works, you go to law school, you sit in a tort class, you read up on how damages are handled, both specific compensatory, non specific compensatory, punitive, and nominal damages, you read the case law on this, THEN come back here.

The fact is that the description I gave is an accurate reflection of the law.

Amusing. Because it's the law, it's right? I didn't say the judge was violating the law. I said making these gentlemen pay living expenses when they were not permitted to "live" is absurd. Your reference to "I say I'm a lawyer and it works this way because it's right" adds no value to the conversation. None.

It is absurd. The kidnapping question is an apt one. Should a kidnapper be able to deduct your proposed living expensse from what they owed you for denying you your liberty? They denied you the ability to make money but they also denied you the ability to enjoy the things that you would normally get with living expenses and while I might have owned a TV if I'd not been kidnapped and this would have meant I would have less money in the bank, I didn't own a tv and I certainly didn't get to enjoy a tv.

But, hey, what do I know about right and wrong? Nobody told me what was right and wrong in law school so I must not know, right?

British law works on the following principle:

making the government lots of money so that MPs can go on expensive holidays = good

actually achieving something useful for the country = bad

British law works on the following principle:

making the government lots of money so that MPs can go on expensive holidays = good

actually achieving something useful for the country = bad

Excuse me, you're missing one tenet;

Giving money to Abu Hamsa= Good....:D

Welcome to Britain, Ladies and Gentlemen. This is sodding illogical though. The state should recompense them greatly for having robbed them 18 years of their life, and should be apologising profusely for having done so. Not forcing them to pay back a quarter what I daresay will be a meagre remuneration in any case.

What right, in light of their being wrongly convicted, does the Judicial system have to oblige them to pay for the cock-up made the judiciary?

*sigh*

The argument thus far:

I am reacting to the sensational headline! What a great injustice! Horrifying! Totally ridiculous!

“Well here is why it’s not actually so horrible and unjust.”

I don’t care! I’m going to totally discount that explanation and continue to scream ‘injustice’, and you, being a cold-blooded lawyer clear don’t know wrong from right.

"The law doesn't actually work the way you seem to think it does...here is a description that might show you how justice is still being served."

*fingers in ears* I'm not going to listen, because you think you're better than me having experience in this area, and I object to your arrogance, and will continue to make my original claim! I may not know how things actually work, but I damn well know how they SHOULD work, and the fact that the two outcomes (actual, and should) are basically the same is beside the point!

OK I'm being a bit obtuse, so let me explain. There are two forms of damages. Specific damages (money lost) and general damages (compensation for loss of freedom, emotional distress, pain and suffering etc etc).

Let's say you are a young child in school, and a fairly bright one. Now the day before report cards are due, you sit down and figure out with all your grades, that you are getting a B in math, and a B in science

But the next day your report card comes in but instead of you B in math and B in science it says you have a C in science C in math.

Let math be specific damages and science be general damages.

So you complain, you say "hey, you made a mistake. As a result of your mistake you gave me a C in science and math. I was supposed to get a B in both. You owe me Bs"

And the school goes "oh, heavens, we made a mistake, we owe you Bs". The next day you get your report card.

And on that card it says a B in math. Great, good, a B is exactly what you deserve. But it still lists a C in science.

The argument of people on this board have been "hey, they still have her grade in science screwed up, they should raise her grade in math to an A to compensate, because an A and a C are the same average as two Bs, and because they made a mistake and gave her Cs in both, they should give her an A in one".

No, that's stupid. Why? Because she doesn't deserve an A. The school messed up and gave her Cs, so they should fix BOTH errors. They should fix BOTH grades. They shouldn't give her an A that she doesn't deserve to make up for the B in an ENTIRELY UNRELATED SUBJECT that she didn't get.

They should fix BOTH grades. That's my point. You can't give them more specific damages than they deserve to compensate for things that should be compensated with by general damages. Yes, they deserve general damages, they deserve compensation for that.

They should not however earn mre specific damages than they deserve. And I am not cold hearted or assholey to suggest this. They deserve exactly what they deserve in specific damages.

On TOP of this they deserve general damages as well. But again, two entirely seperate things, and you can't say let's fudge the calculation on specific damages to in effect give them general damages without actually giving them general damages.

Yes they deserve it, but they deserve it in the form of general damages compensation, not fudging the calculations of specific damages.

We get what you're saying. It's just flawed. It may be legal, but it's flawed.

Let's say I calculate that because you were living in Detroit and the cost of living there is $10,000/year, let's say just to make it even. For your $10,000, you got to sleep in your own comfortable bed, watch your own tv, eat food you chose, etc. You get a service for that cost, not just being alive, but enjoying the things you buy with that money. If you don't get the service, then you should not incur the cost.

They did not receive any of the services usually connected to living expenses nor did they receive a reasonable substitute. Unlike a case where someone has died, these gentlemen were around to enjoy those services and simply were denied by the state the right to enjoy them. Thus charging them for that service is another wrong.

I don't think Jocabia is trying to tell you how the law works. I believe he is making a statement on how he thinks it should work, particularly in a case like this.

Yes. He is talking about specific compensatory damages, but the problem is that if I don't receive a service whether I would have had to pay for that service had I received it is irrelevant, or should be. Whether they addressed this issue in some other form of compensation, as brought up by both Sin and A101, is also irrelevant, because it still claims the logic behind charging someone for a service they didn't receive is defensible.

Does anyone else think "WTF?!!?"

Yes.

The argument thus far:

I am reacting to the sensational headline! What a great injustice! Horrifying! Totally ridiculous!

“Well here is why it’s not actually so horrible and unjust.”

I don’t care! I’m going to totally discount that explanation and continue to scream ‘injustice’, and you, being a cold-blooded lawyer clear don’t know wrong from right.

"The law doesn't actually work the way you seem to think it does...here is a description that might show you how justice is still being served."

*fingers in ears* I'm not going to listen, because you think you're better than me having experience in this area, and I object to your arrogance, and will continue to make my original claim! I may not know how things actually work, but I damn well know how they SHOULD work, and the fact that the two outcomes (actual, and should) are basically the same is beside the point!


Really? Are any of those actual quotes? The actual logic so far is that people should not be required to pay for services they didn't receive. I can see how that sounds like "I'm not going to listen because I'm screaming injustice". Well, if you're not listening it might sound like that.

You would have probably owned a cell phone as well. Of course, you didn't and didn't get to enjoy a cell phone, but can I discount that as well?

We get what you're saying. It's just flawed. It may be legal, but it's flawed.

Let's say I calculate that because you were living in Detroit and the cost of living there is $10,000/year, let's say just to make it even. For your $10,000, you got to sleep in your own comfortable bed, watch your own tv, eat food you chose, etc. You get a service for that cost, not just being alive, but enjoying the things you buy with that money. If you don't get the service, then you should not incur the cost.

They did not receive any of the services usually connected to living expenses nor did they receive a reasonable substitute. Unlike a case where someone has died, these gentlemen were around to enjoy those services and simply were denied by the state the right to enjoy them. Thus charging them for that service is another wrong.

Here's the thing. They are not being charged, you have to get over the notion that they are being CHARGED. They aren't.

What is happening here is they're saying, were you to be free you would have paid $10,000 in bills. Therefore we are not going to give you that $10,000 because you would not have kept it ANYWAY.

That's it, not a charge. It's called mitigation. If you're making $50,000 a year, and you pay in bills $10,000 a year, and then I kidnap you for that year, at the end of the year you are $40,000 poorer than you would have been.

This is specific damages. Specific damages doesn't CARE about the comfort you got. Specific damages doesn't CARE about the emotional distress you received. Specific damages doesn't CARE about the enjoyment you lost. Specific damages doesn't CARE how you FELT about it.

Specific damages cares about one thing. You would have made $50,000 you would have spent $10,000 so as a result you are $40,000 poorer, thus you deserve $40,000. No more.

Now, I say specific damages doesn't care about these things, that does not mean they are never addressed however.

Like I said, when you calculate SPECIFIC COMPENSATORY DAMAGES you care only about one thing, money lost. You would have made 50k you would have spent 10k you have lost 40k from your pocket, that's IT.

Now there IS something that does care about the discomfort, that does care about your emotional distress, that does care about your lost of enjoyment, that does care about how you feel.

This is called general, non specific compensatory damages. When arguing for general, non specific compensatory damages THAT is where you talk about your feelings, your discomfort, your emotional distress, your general loss of freedom.

Specific damages are a calculation, you would have made 50k you would have spent 10k you are thus 40k poorer, you are owed 40k

There is a place for compensation for distress, for discomfort, of COURSE there is, and they deserve it, absolutly.

They just don't deserve it HERE. Not through specific damages. Specific damages don't care about that.

General damages do, which they are owed and should get.

I have to make a point of explaining things forcefully when people rattle on for pages about the contents of the article without, apparently, having read it.

One would hope I wouldn't have to be and people would read before commenting, but eh.

obviously by that theory they should have been let out of prison with no compensation whatsoever. what is the likelihood that after 18 years of average free existence that guy would have accumulated anything let alone 900,000? maybe he would have accumulated 10k in assets, probably not. he may well have ended up in massive debt. its not unusual. he probably OWES the prison system a few quid.

that there is a "reasonable explanation" doesnt make it right. its ridiculous to deduct living expenses from a judgement of false imprisonment.

because it still claims the logic behind charging someone for a service they didn't receive is defensible.

*sigh* once again they are not being charged a service. They aren't being CHARGED anything. What is being figured out here is how much money they would have had each year.

Just like you said, if your expenses are 10k a year and you make 50k, at the end of that year you ahve 40k.

Can we agree to this? You are merging two different types of damages here into one. You think specific damages should compensate for the loss of their lifestyle. It shouldn't, ever. That's not what specific damages do. Specific damages look at how much money you would have had in your pocket after ALL is said and done, and gives you that, no more.

General damages is where you are for those sorts of things, and they are very deserving of it.

Thank you so much. Not that the quoted will care, or stop waving laws in your face like a schlong.

Yeah, it sucks to have to look at more than your emotional reaction to an incomplete set of facts. Clarification on the point merely gets in the way of the joy of pointless bitching.

Look at the entire set of facts, and compensation available. THEN determine whether you actually think these particular deducations are unjust...and explain WHY.

not only should they have to pay for their board and lodgings, but also for the costs of the investigation into now finding out the real people responsible for the murder. Murder investigations costs a lot, y'know.

Also, they should pay compensation towards any person or persons who might have been attacked during those 18 years by the real criminals. Logic here is that if they hadn't been falsely imprisoned, the real villians would have been caught and thus they would not have committed any further crimes over that 18 year period. Thus these innocent schlubs are in some real way responsible towards any other victims of the real perpertrators crimes.

And of course they should also pay compensation towards the family of the murdered man who no doubt are suffering from the stress and grief of now knowing that the killers actually got away scot free. Their pain must be tremendous and it's only just that these wrongfully imprisoned people compensate them, as their sucessfully overturning of their sentences must have reopened old wounds etc

And finally, the govt should announce an inquiry into making sure this doesn't happen again (the compensation, not the wrongful imprisonment) and an across the board increase of 4p to the gallon in petrol tax.

That's only fair.

AND the ass poundings! do you have any idea what he would have had to pay a hooker for that service over the course of 18 years??

obviously by that theory they should have been let out of prison with no compensation whatsoever. what is the likelihood that after 18 years of average free existence that guy would have accumulated anything let alone 900,000? maybe he would have accumulated 10k in assets, probably not. he may well have ended up in massive debt. its not unusual. he probably OWES the prison system a few quid.

Where, exactly, do you get that from?

He probably would have accumulated assets for that 900,000, we don't know which assets. He can aquire them now.

Fuck the "mitigating factors". Fuck 'em right where they live - this is bullshit, and I don't particularly care what your legal opinion is, Neese.

obviously by that theory they should have been let out of prison with no compensation whatsoever. what is the likelihood that after 18 years of average free existence that guy would have accumulated anything let alone 900,000? maybe he would have accumulated 10k in assets, probably not. he may well have ended up in massive debt. its not unusual. he probably OWES the prison system a few quid.

that there is a "reasonable explanation" doesnt make it right. its ridiculous to deduct living expenses from a judgement of false imprisonment.

Thank you so much. Not that the quoted will care, or stop waving laws in your face like a schlong.

Thank you so much. Not that the quoted will care, or stop waving laws in your face like a schlong.

and hey, maybe they would have been stabbed on the street while they were out of prison, so not only do they not deserve compensation, the prisons should actually kill them!

See, I can use absolutly nonsensical hyperbole to prove absolutly nothing too!

Look at me, I'm a jackass who won't let something silly like "facts" get in the way of my indignation!

Refuse to pay, get sentenced for I would assume contempt of court or something then demand recognition of time served.

It's not like they cut them a cheque, and then say, 'Okay, now give us this much back'.

If you had your pants on, I bet you'd have figured that out:D

Were they at the time? Did they even have parents? If the people were living on their own at the time it stretches belief that they suddenly would have uprooted their lives and moved back in with mom and dad, who may or may not be alive, who would have let them live rent free.

It's arguable, but a pretty shitty argument. Moreover they are having deducted 25%. I don't know where you live, but 25% of your salary going to bills and expenses? Really? My rent ALONE is 35% of my salary.

It HARDLY matters what the fuck they would've made on the outside, because something more than just the ability to get a salary was taken from them: their freedom, their time, part of their life that they'll never get back. They don't deserve to have their compensation argued over semantics of "well you would've paid x amount or y amount..." fuck that, they were kidnapped and held against their will unjustly and deserve as much money they can legally suck from their captors.

Where, exactly, do you get that from?

He probably would have accumulated assets for that 900,000, we don't know which assets. He can aquire them now.

let me say it again

that they thought up a legal justification for taking a quarter of his judgement does not make it right.

The problem is you are all trying to merge two very different types of damages into one. You are trying to make specific damages do something they are not supposed to do.

What you want has a place. You want them compensated for their loss of freedom, their emotional distress. And they deserve it, they most certainly do.

But you're trying to bundle that into a scheme of specific damages, and that's not what they're for. What they have lost in terms of comfort, in terms of family, in terms of emotional stability, can and should all be compensated for. Absolutly it should.

But it shouldn't be done through specific damages. That's not what specific damages do. You all think this is a great injustice because they are not being fully compensated, but everything you want them to be compensated for exists, there is a place for that. That place is general damages.

I am not disagreeing with you that they deserve it, that they deserve to get paid for every single second of lost freedom. Absolutly, unequivicably.

But not through specific damages. That's not what they're for.

let me say it again

that they thought up a legal justification for taking a quarter of his judgement does not make it right.

they didn't take a quarter of his judgment.

They took a quarter of his specific damages.

Different things.

let me say it again

that they thought up a legal justification for taking a quarter of his judgement does not make it right.
Why exactly? What isn't right about that class of damages being limited to a cost/expense analysis, while other forms of damages are NOT limited in that way?

What exactly is wrong with there being several classes of damages to draw from in order to arrive at a certain amount of compensation?

The total amount is not being slashed by a quarter.

Refuse to pay, get sentenced for I would assume contempt of court or something then demand recognition of time served.

The problem is you are all trying to merge two very different types of damages into one. You are trying to make specific damages do something they are not supposed to do.

What you want has a place. You want them compensated for their loss of freedom, their emotional distress. And they deserve it, they most certainly do.

But you're trying to bundle that into a scheme of specific damages, and that's not what they're for. What they have lost in terms of comfort, in terms of family, in terms of emotional stability, can and should all be compensated for. Absolutly it should.

But it shouldn't be done through specific damages. That's not what specific damages do. You all think this is a great injustice because they are not being fully compensated, but everything you want them to be compensated for exists, there is a place for that. That place is general damages.

I am not disagreeing with you that they deserve it, that they deserve to get paid for every single second of lost freedom. Absolutly, unequivicably.

But not through specific damages. That's not what they're for.

What we want specific damages to do is to pay them for their incarceration as if it were these men were working for them. They should receive reasonable wages. They almost certainly would have had to trade their time for that income in the free world. They didn't trade their time and thus deserve the income.

For further specific damages, the negatives, the living expenses, are also a service related expense, only in the opposite direction. However, in the case of living expenses the service was NOT provided. Thus they should not be permitted compensation (or a negative compensation in this case).

We recognize what you are adding together, but included in the speculative parts of the determinations of the compensation should be whether or not whatever it is they are paying for was received. The time for the wages was received. The services for the living expenses were not. Living expenses give me a service that exceeds survival and your specific compensation completely ignores this even though other parts of specific compensation do not.

and hey, maybe they would have been stabbed on the street while they were out of prison, so not only do they not deserve compensation, the prisons should actually kill them!

See, I can use absolutly nonsensical hyperbole to prove absolutly nothing too!

Look at me, I'm a jackass who won't let something silly like "facts" get in the way of my indignation!

No, thats condascending bollocks.

Explain to me, without citing laws that simply skip over any issue of "right or wrong", why wrongly convicted men should be obliged to pay anything for being detained at her majesty's pleasure.

The argument thus far:

I am reacting to the sensational headline! What a great injustice! Horrifying! Totally ridiculous!

“Well here is why it’s not actually so horrible and unjust.”

I don’t care! I’m going to totally discount that explanation and continue to scream ‘injustice’, and you, being a cold-blooded lawyer clear don’t know wrong from right.

"The law doesn't actually work the way you seem to think it does...here is a description that might show you how justice is still being served."

*fingers in ears* I'm not going to listen, because you think you're better than me having experience in this area, and I object to your arrogance, and will continue to make my original claim! I may not know how things actually work, but I damn well know how they SHOULD work, and the fact that the two outcomes (actual, and should) are basically the same is beside the point!

No one ever appreciates lawyers. :(

But I do. Hey, baby, can I give you my statement? ;)

No, thats condascending bollocks.

Explain to me, without citing laws that simply skip over any issue of "right or wrong", why wrongly convicted men should be obliged to pay anything for being detained at her majesty's pleasure.

they shouldn't. Of course they shouldn't. That would be a horrible injustice.

Fortunatly, that's not at all what happened here.

What is happening here is that their specific compensatory damages are being reduced by the amount of money they would have paid for sunk, non permanent asset generating costs such as rent, food, heat, and electricity, but did not pay since they were not doing so.

Refuse to pay, get sentenced for I would assume contempt of court or something then demand recognition of time served.

how would they, exactly, refuse to pay? They don't have this money yet, it's a judgement they will be given.

They're not being BILLED for anything, they are GETTING a payment, and that payment will be reduced by the amount, in estimation, they would have paid for services had they not been in jail.

they shouldn't. Of course they shouldn't. That would be a horrible injustice.

Fortunatly, that's not at all what happened here.

In essence it is, since a fraction of the sum they otherwise would have recieved has been witheld, hence constituting a fee, if only one extracted prior to the distribution of compensation.

Why exactly? What isn't right about that class of damages being limited to a cost/expense analysis, while other forms of damages are NOT limited in that way?

What exactly is wrong with there being several classes of damages to draw from in order to arrive at a certain amount of compensation?

The total amount is not being slashed by a quarter.

It's true that the overall may come out even. The fact is that the overall calculations was not presented to us.

What is at question is the way they do the cost/expense analysis fair? Is it reasonable?

It's not. It assumes an expense for no service. It would be like a phone company charging a monthly bill for service while my phone was disconnected. Yes, had I been up-to-date with my bill it would have been connected so the disconnection is my fault, but they didn't provide the service for which they are requiring compensation. They could have. They didn't.

In this case, many of the things that people actually receive as a part of their living expenses. Real, touchable things. Were not received. At all. So the specific expense wasn't incurred and the service wasn't received. As such, there is no need to balance for either side on that point.

how would they, exactly, refuse to pay? They don't have this money yet, it's a judgement they will be given.

They're not being BILLED for anything, they are GETTING a payment, and that payment will be reduced by the amount, in estimation, they would have paid for services had they not been in jail.

Here's the question? For a specific expense, let's use renting a car, for example. If I am given use of a pinto, should I be charged for a cadillac?

Look at the entire set of facts, and compensation available. THEN determine whether you actually think these particular deducations are unjust...and explain WHY.

Personally, I don't think I agree with the way "specific damages" are calculated. In Arthias' car example, the person who was harmed has paid out money to repair the car and to rent a car. That is money they spent specifically because of the car accident caused by another. When we start talking about gas, we're talking about a lot of maybes. Maybe the harmed person would have gone to a gas station with an average price. Maybe the harmed person would have driven "X" number of miles. Maybe the harmed person would have gotten "Y" gas mileage. Of course, it's equally possible that the person knows a little gas station hidden away that charges much less than others. It's equally possible that they would have carpooled. It's equally possible that they do a lot of freeway driving, but had to do more city driving during that time period because of the injury......

Of course, one could also say that a lot of maybes goes into calculating the compensation in the first place. In the prison example, a salary that might have been received is essentially assumed. That person might have been laid off in that time period, had they been out of jail. They might have lost a great deal of money in an identity theft scheme. They might have had a child, and thus incurred childcare expenses, etc...

We're going to have to err in our calculations no matter what we do here. In my mind, it makes more sense to err on the side of the harmed. So what a person *might* have spent in gas should be irrelevant. What she *might* have paid for rent should be irrelevant. They should pay her for the expenses she paid out or what she would have brought in. What she *might* have spent it on is nothing more than speculation on their part, and frankly I don't care if it means she gets a little extra money in the deal, especially when the other likely alternative is that she gets paid less than she deserves. ((The idea that they would somehow hit it head on is nice, but practically impossible)).

The problem is you are all trying to merge two very different types of damages into one. You are trying to make specific damages do something they are not supposed to do.

No, I think the problem is that some people disagree with how specific damages are calculated in the first place.

they shouldn't. Of course they shouldn't. That would be a horrible injustice.

Fortunatly, that's not at all what happened here.

Interestingly enough, there was a case like that a year or two ago. I believe it was in Britain also. A man was wrongly imprisoned, got out, and then received a bill for room and board. Not sure what happened with it, but I'm guessing it probably got thrown out.


What is happening here is that their specific compensatory damages are being reduced by the amount of money they would have paid for sunk, non permanent asset generating costs such as rent, food, heat, and electricity, but did not pay since they were not doing so.

You mean a rather arbitrarily calculated amount that they *might* have spent on these things?

It HARDLY matters what the fuck they would've made on the outside, because something more than just the ability to get a salary was taken from them: their freedom, their time, part of their life that they'll never get back. They don't deserve to have their compensation argued over semantics of "well you would've paid x amount or y amount..." fuck that, they were kidnapped and held against their will unjustly and deserve as much money they can legally suck from their captors.

To be fair, they are trying their best to actually figure out a just compensation. I disagree with how they approached it and some of their justifications, but the purpose was to justly rectify the situation. I promise you if saving themselves the embarrassment of a wrongful conviction and these gentlemen the denial of their liberties was possible, they most certainly would have do it. They can't so they are trying to figure out what is a just way to balance things using whatever they have available.

No, I think the problem is that some people disagree with how specific damages are calculated in the first place.

Yes, that's the point. It doesn't matter if they are somehow compensated in another way, if the specific damages suggest that the "living" service they received is somehow equivalent to what they would have gotten as free citizens. By definition, it cannot be and thus the compensation should not be the same or be at all based on what they would have spent had they been receiving the service they never got.

Why exactly? What isn't right about that class of damages being limited to a cost/expense analysis, while other forms of damages are NOT limited in that way?

What exactly is wrong with there being several classes of damages to draw from in order to arrive at a certain amount of compensation?

The total amount is not being slashed by a quarter.

are you sure about that?

The three were deducted money from their compensation for what lawyers called "living expenses" but what the court agreed was for life necessities.

Judges ruled by a four to one majority that they must pay back 25% of their compensation.


you really think that this is RIGHT? a court awarded the first man £990,000. the state appealed that to yank 25% of it away. no its not right to decide to make them pay what IS room and board no matter what the prosecution called it. to go back and decide that someone who spent 18 years of his life in hell should not get the full amount awarded by a court is petty and wrong. they should have accepted the original court's judgement on what these men deserved in compensation and left off the petty need to knock it down by 25%. it should be considered a bonus amount due to the inabililty of the state to give them back their stolen years.

No one ever appreciates lawyers. :(

But I do. Hey, baby, can I give you my statement? ;)

Absolutely, and I'd also like a chance to review the evidence in detail.

they shouldn't. Of course they shouldn't. That would be a horrible injustice.

Fortunatly, that's not at all what happened here.

What is happening here is that their specific compensatory damages are being reduced by the amount of money they would have paid for sunk, non permanent asset generating costs such as rent, food, heat, and electricity, but did not pay since they were not doing so.

And by what right does Her Majesty's Government feel that it must be compensated for those expenses when it was not the choice of the gentlemen in question to stay at one of Her Majesty's Prisons?

Rents to let are a contract negotiated between a landlord and tenant who reach the agreement willingly. These gentlemen certainly were not contracted or willing tenants. Her Majesty's Government is acting like the services it provides to prisoners in gaol are not part of its social responsibility.

You place a person in confinement for the good of society and you have just taken the onus upon yourself to feed, clothe, provide shelter and provide medical care for them. You have absolutely no right to charge them for the experience ESPECIALLY when you as a government are in the wrong for improperly confining innocent citizens.

The rest of the legalese and arguments in favor of the government are codswallop. They stole 18 years of an innocent citizen's life (or lives in this case) and yet have the gall to demand expenses for the stay?

Total bollocks.

not at all. They have not, however, been charged anything.

Yes, they have. This is a series of debits and credits that reach a final balance of what is owed. This is basically a broken out invoice. Just because you didn't first receive the money and then pay for something doesn't mean the charge did not occur. Saying it didn't get charged is quite frankly a pretty lame cop out.

Here's the question? For a specific expense, let's use renting a car, for example. If I am given use of a pinto, should I be charged for a cadillac?

not at all. They have not, however, been charged anything.

you really think that this is RIGHT? a court awarded the first man £990,000.

Let me ask you a question, real quick.

let's say you drive to work and back every day, the cost is $2 in gas, round trip, each day. One sunday evening you bang up your car, and have to take it to the shop.

The following monday, instead of driving to work, you must take a bus to work. The bus costs you nothing. You do not spend the $2 in gas.

That evening you go to pick up your repaired car and the bill is $100, which you pay.

How much poorer are you, in total for damaging your car? How much money would you have had, had you not damaged your car.

To continue that, suppose I was the one who damaged your car. HOw much specific damages do I owe you? How much poorer are you now than you would have been had the car never been damaged?

It should be considered a bonus amount due to the inabililty of the state to give them back their stolen years

And in doing so you would have turned specific compensation into general compensation. Two entirely seperate systems. One should no sooner be given general damages in specific compensation than one should have a grade of a B raised to an A in one subject because the school accidentally turned the grade in another subject from a B to a C.

Yes, they have. This is a series of debits and credits that reach a final balance of what is owed. This is basically a broken out invoice. Just because you didn't first receive the money and then pay for something doesn't mean the charge did not occur. Saying it didn't get charged is quite frankly a pretty lame cop out.

they were not charged for anything, for what service have they been charged? Their damages are mitigated and reduced by the amount they would have paid had they not been in jail.

The suffering they endured for being in jail is absoltuly and totally irrelevant to the matter of specific compensation.

And by what right does Her Majesty's Government feel that it must be compensated for those expenses when it was not the choice of the gentlemen in question to stay at one of Her Majesty's Prisons?

Read...the fucking...article.

What expenses are they being compensated for? None. They are reducing the amount of specific monetary damages to account for money that these people would have paid had they not been in jail.

There is a fundamental difference between this. I will repeat my hypothetical.

Let me ask you a question, real quick.

let's say you drive to work and back every day, the cost is $2 in gas, round trip, each day. One sunday evening you bang up your car, and have to take it to the shop.

The following monday, instead of driving to work, you must take a bus to work. The bus costs you nothing. You do not spend the $2 in gas.

That evening you go to pick up your repaired car and the bill is $100, which you pay.

How much poorer are you, in total for damaging your car? How much money would you have had, had you not damaged your car.

To continue that, suppose I was the one who damaged your car. HOw much specific damages do I owe you? How much poorer are you now than you would have been had the car never been damaged?

they were not charged for anything, for what service have they been charged? Their damages are mitigated and reduced by the amount they would have paid had they not been in jail.

They were charged for cost of living. That's the point. The amount they would have paid had they not been in jail was compensation to the providers of a service for a service provided. They did NOT receive that service or an equivalent for that service so there is no sense to claiming they should pay for it.

The suffering they endured for being in jail is absoltuly and totally irrelevant to the matter of specific compensation.

This has nothing to do with suffering. This has to do with the fact that the money they would have expended would have been in return for a service they didn't receive. So deducting from the overall compensation, charging them for the service, doesn't make any sense because, unlike the fact that the state specifically got their time in return for the specific compensation for their wages, there was no equivalent service provided.

if the specific damages suggest that the "living" service they received is somehow equivalent to what they would have gotten as free citizens.

No, they don't. That's what you are simply just NOT understanding. Specific damages involves no value judgements. It involves no comparisons. It involves no question as to whether the services are comparable or equivalent. It does not do this AT ALL.

All it says was "if you had not been in jail you would have paid X, so we deduct X"

There is a place for all that. There is a place for comparisons, there is a place to see how much their lives had been lessend.

That place is "general damages"

That's it, that's what you're just not getting. There is a place to get what you want. It's just not HERE. They haven't been denied the opportunity to argue for general compensation. You are trying to intrudce one system into where it does not belong.

It exists, I swear to you it exists. It just doesn't exist in the scheme of specific compensation. That's what general compensation is for.

For the last bloody time, I am not saying they do not deserve compensation for what they have lost. I am only saying that specific damages are not the place to get that compensation. That's IT, that's all. They should be awarded for the full depth of their suffering.

That award should come in the form of GENERAL damages, not specific ones. Just because specific damages do not cover this aspect doesn't mean it's NEVER covered. It is. General damages deal with that. General damages say "how much has he suffered for being in a bunk in prison not his own bed" General damages say "how much has he suffered for being in a cell not his own apartment?" General damages say "how much has he suffered for not having TV, internet, access to phone"

Those are all valid questions, those are all valid areas for compensation. But that compensation comes in the form of GENERAL damages, NOT specific damages.

they didn't take a quarter of his judgment.

They took a quarter of his specific damages.

Different things.

Where are you getting the information that the 25% reduction is only on the specific damages part of the settlement?

Let me ask you a question, real quick.

let's say you drive to work and back every day, the cost is $2 in gas, round trip, each day. One sunday evening you bang up your car, and have to take it to the shop.

The following monday, instead of driving to work, you must take a bus to work. The bus costs you nothing. You do not spend the $2 in gas.

That evening you go to pick up your repaired car and the bill is $100, which you pay.

How much poorer are you, in total for damaging your car? How much money would you have had, had you not damaged your car.

First of all, what bus can you catch that doesn't cost any money? Anyways...

That amount is really impossible to calculate accurately. How much work did I miss by having to go pick up my car before they closed? Did I eat something different (possibly more expensive/possibly less than usual) because I had to go to the shop before heading home? Did I have to make extra arrangements for children so that I could get by and take care of the car? Were there other errands I needed to run and couldn't because I didn't have my car? And so on and so on....

You act as if specific damages are somehow an objective and correct calculation. They aren't. There are numerous factors, most of them never taken into account, that could go into effect here.

To continue that, suppose I was the one who damaged your car. HOw much specific damages do I owe you? How much poorer are you now than you would have been had the car never been damaged?

You owe me $100, as that is what the repairs for the car you screwed up cost. Sure, I might have $2 from the whole thing. I might not. In fact, I might have spent $5 extra on dinner by going out to eat that night because I didn't have time to cook after going to pick up my car and I would thus be out $3 on the deal.

Let me ask you a question, real quick.

let's say you drive to work and back every day, the cost is $2 in gas, round trip, each day. One sunday evening you bang up your car, and have to take it to the shop.

The following monday, instead of driving to work, you must take a bus to work. The bus costs you nothing. You do not spend the $2 in gas.

That evening you go to pick up your repaired car and the bill is $100, which you pay.

How much poorer are you, in total for damaging your car? How much money would you have had, had you not damaged your car.

To continue that, suppose I was the one who damaged your car. HOw much specific damages do I owe you? How much poorer are you now than you would have been had the car never been damaged?



And in doing so you would have turned specific compensation into general compensation. Two entirely seperate systems. One should no sooner be given general damages in specific compensation than one should have a grade of a B raised to an A in one subject because the school accidentally turned the grade in another subject from a B to a C.

i dont care. a court awarded a sum of money to these men on SOME basis. i have no idea what that basis was but it was decided legally by a court. to then go back and say that it should be 25% less is WRONG. to find some legal justification for paying them less is WRONG.

and you know what else? holding up the payment of the judgement by appealing the amount is also WRONG. they have suffered enough and waited long enough for the money that will help them put their lives back together again. anything that holds them back from living a normal life again is wrong.

finding a legal justification for it does not make it right. all it makes it is legal.

No, they don't. That's what you are simply just NOT understanding. Specific damages involves no value judgements. It involves no comparisons. It involves no question as to whether the services are comparable or equivalent. It does not do this AT ALL.

All it says was "if you had not been in jail you would have paid X, so we deduct X"

It is completely impossible to know what you would have paid. All they have is a relatively arbitrary amount that you might have paid.

The rest of the legalese and arguments in favor of the government are codswallop. They stole 18 years of an innocent citizen's life (or lives in this case) and yet have the gall to demand expenses for the stay?

Total bollocks.

And I am in complete agreement with you, sir.

finding a legal justification for it does not make it right. all it makes it is legal.

And again, no argument whatsoever.

This has to do with the fact that the money they would have expended would have been in return for a service they didn't receive.

Yes ok, fair enough. But the internal value of those services, what they would have gained for being in their own apartment, having their own, food their own tv, what they lost in terms of the enjoyment of those services is something that is dealt with in general damages.

Specific damages are very very very simple in how they are calculated. It doesn't care that they didn't, it cares that they WOULD HAVE. And because they WOULD HAVE spent this money means that what they have lost, the amount that they are poorer by, must deduct that money. Simple.

Now, yes, you're absolutly correct. You can't say "well living in a jail cell is just the same as living in your own place, so we can deduct the cost of living that you would have had, and assume everything's equal".

That, simply, is absolutly nonsensical. It's absurd. And you're right, horribly unjust.

But SPECIFIC damages don't make that comparison, they don't deal with that comparison at all.

The question is what is the VALUE of living in your own apartment, and what is fair compensation for that value, is a question left up to general damages.

That's all, that's it. They deserve it, they most CERTAINLY deserve it. But they deserve it in the proper system. Specific damages mitigate. That's how they work.

They do, or at least, they should, have an opportunity to be compensated for their loss of living in a jail cell versus living in their own place. Absolutly.

But SPECIFIC damages is not where that's done. That form of compensation is in general damages.

i dont care. a court awarded a sum of money to these men on SOME basis. i have no idea what that basis was but it was decided legally by a court. to then go back and say that it should be 25% less is WRONG. to find some legal justification for paying them less is WRONG. .

A court determined a value. A HIGHER court reduced it, that's what an appeal is. If you're saying it's wrong for a higher court to change the judgement of a lower court on appeal, are you also saying that people convicted of a crime should not be allowed to appeal?

After all, if the higher court overturns their conviction, they're changing the determination of a court. Is that also wrong?

not at all. They have not, however, been charged anything.

Then if that is so, then why is the amount of the settlement announced as one figure and then modified to a lower amount? Just because they never see the money doesn't mean they aren't entitled to every single pound.

You act as if specific damages are somehow an objective and correct calculation.

Absolutly they are, that's what SPECIFIC damages are, a pure, objective calculation. I would hazard to say that this is the very DEFINITION of specific damages.

I am not "acting" that way, that is what they are, by definition.

You owe me $100, as that is what the repairs for the car you screwed up cost. Sure, I might have $2 from the whole thing. I might not. In fact, I might have spent $5 extra on dinner by going out to eat that night because I didn't have time to cook after going to pick up my car and I would thus be out $3 on the deal.

If I wanted to include other variables into the situation I would have. I did not so please don't assume their are any.

Everything else in the scenario is precisely the same, there were no expenses out of the ordinary. If I wanted there to be, I would have included them. the only difference monetarily is, you didn't spend money on gas. Likewise, if there were other variables in the situation, you would be able to include them in a claim for specific damages. Including your meal out.

Now please, answer the question.

Absolutly they are, that's what SPECIFIC damages are, a pure, objective calculation.

No, they aren't. How do you know what I would have done if things were different? You don't. It's impossible to know. We only know what did happen and what *might* have happened if things were different.

There's nothing objective or pure about this. It is speculation. It's all about what you *might* have paid in rent, what you *might* have paid for food, what you *might* have paid in bills, what you *might* have paid in gas, etc.

There is no "would" here. It is all "might." Seems rather subjective to me.

If I wanted to include other variables into the situation I would have. I did not so please don't assume their are any.

There are always extra variables to include. That's the point.

Everything else in the scenario is precisely the same, there were no expenses out of the ordinary. If I wanted there to be, I would have included them. the only difference monetarily is, you didn't spend money on gas.

So your example doesn't actually have any place in, say, reality, eh?


Now please, answer the question.

Seems pretty useless if we aren't going to look at things as they actually exist instead of how they might exist in some ideal little world where nothing changes but a single factor and that single factor somehow has no effect whatsoever on anything else.

It's like asking me, "What would I owe you if I had a unicorn and you grew oats and my unicorn ate and trampled some of your oats, but didn't do anything else whatsoever and I somehow knew exactly how much those oats might sell for and I somehow knew exactly how much the labor you would have had to pay for to sow those oats would have been and I somehow know exactly how much fertilizer was supplied by my unicorn's poop and I somehow know exactly......."

Your scheme requires omnipotence and the will to ignore realistic situations. In real life, we don't have idealizes situations - we have realistic ones.

i dont care. a court awarded a sum of money to these men on SOME basis. i have no idea what that basis was but it was decided legally by a court. to then go back and say that it should be 25% less is WRONG. to find some legal justification for paying them less is WRONG.


I do care actually. Because what most of you seem to want to do is get rid of specific damages, and have it all be about general damages. However, specific damages serve a specific purpose. Removing a category of compensation is actually counter-productive...NOT more fair. Better to have a number of categories one can claim damages under.

That specific damages are a very limited category does not mean that general damages are unable to make up for the lack of compensation afforded by those specific damages. That is precisely what general damages are there for...to take into account what specific damages, by their very nature, can not.

That specific damages are a very limited category does not mean that general damages are unable to make up for the lack of compensation afforded by those specific damages. That is precisely what general damages are there for...to take into account what specific damages, by their very nature, can not.

See, this is a very good point. Let me return to our example.

I make 50k a year, my expenses are 10k, I am left with 40k. Specific damages care about money. Nothing else but money. If at the end of the year I would have been left with 40k, then if I spend a year, falsely, in jail, the government owes me that 40k in specific damages. That 40k I would have had in my pocket, or would have had assets worth 40k, or some combination in between.

Now there's general damages. YOu say they were charging 10k for expenses that were demonstrably less. Here's why I don't care. Because it all comes out (or should come out) in the wash anyway.

Here's what I mean. My expenses cost me, out of pocket, 10k a year. But what are they WORTH to me? At very least 10k, obviously, or I would not have paid it.

But I can argue it's in fact worth significantly more. If I have a 10k a year apartment that apartment is worth to me at least 10k, otherwise, again, I wouldn't have paid for it. But in fact it's worth a lot more. Surely that apartment is worth the 10k, but beyond that, it allows me my own place, a place to live, a place to relax, a place to have freedom. That apartment is worth to me the benefits i gain from not only living in THAT apartment, but in an apartment I can call my own, my own place, my own home.

So that apartment is worth to me something far greater. And when you imprison me falsely, you deny me the use of that apartment. That apartment which, in fact, is worth far far more to me than 10k. Far more.

And when I seek damages, I seek from you what you owe me for removing me from that apartment. You have denied from me the USE of that apartment, something i value greatly. Something I value, obviously, at least 10k, because otherwise, again, I wouldn't have spent it.

So specific damages reduces my amount by 10k, because, after all, I didn't spend it on my apartment. But general damages gives BACK to me that 10k, because they have denied me the USE of my apartment, a use I value at, at LEAST, 10k. In fact it's more, much more.

Does that make sense? I didn't pay for my aparment, yes. So they saved me the money on my apartment. Thus reduction in specific damages.

But in saving me from paying for my apartment, they have denied me the USE of that apartment, something I value at LEAST for 10k, and probably much more. And while you have SAVED me 10k since I did not pay for that apartment, you OWE me for DENYING ME THE USE of that apartment, which again, is at LEAST 10k. And denying me the use of my apartment is part of what you owe me...in general damages.

So again, it all, or at least should, come out in the end.

No, they don't. That's what you are simply just NOT understanding. Specific damages involves no value judgements. It involves no comparisons. It involves no question as to whether the services are comparable or equivalent. It does not do this AT ALL.

And it should.

All it says was "if you had not been in jail you would have paid X, so we deduct X"

And it shouldn't. It's absurd to charge for phone service if I was not permitted to use the phone. And, yes, in accounting deducting something from my compensation is a charge.


There is a place for all that. There is a place for comparisons, there is a place to see how much their lives had been lessend.

This isn't about how their life was lessened. That's the part you're not getting. You think this is about pain or suffering or loss of liberty. This is about them being told that since they WOULD have paid for a service, they SHOULD pay for a service, despite not actually having received that service through no fault of their own. That's the point. In the case of a job, they were not given the opportunity to provide anything for that compensation other than their time, which they did. In the case of living expenses, they were not given the opportunity to receive that service, so pretending that should be deducted from their expenses is nonsensical.

The reason people are reacting the way they are is because reason suggests that you if you are charged for a service that you received that service. Or at the very least that service was offered to you.


That place is "general damages"

That's it, that's what you're just not getting. There is a place to get what you want. It's just not HERE. They haven't been denied the opportunity to argue for general compensation. You are trying to intrudce one system into where it does not belong.

I am trying to suggest that if at any point it is declared they should have living expenses deducted it suggests that they should pay for a service called "living expenses". That is a service they did not recieve and regardless of if an attempt to balance it occurs elsewhere, it smacks of injustice.

This is the specific reason for the reaction of people here. If you put a charge on my phone bill called a "man" tax because I'm male, it wouldn't matter if my phone did not change as a result, I would call you up and ask you to remove that ludicrous tax because of the statement it makes.

I recognize that you're entire argument here is "we do it this way and you're wrong for analyzing it", but the fact is despite the fact that you like how it works, I don't. I'm allowed to. If you'd like me to change my opinion, you're going to need to go a bit further than "it works this way so that's how it works" and describe why you think it's just.



It exists, I swear to you it exists. It just doesn't exist in the scheme of specific compensation. That's what general compensation is for.[/QUOTE]

I don't care if it exists. That's the point. The fact that they say that these men should be deducted for expenses suggests such an action is fair. Regardless of what else you do, this judgement says that people should have paid for services they didn't receive. It sends a message and the law does have to recognize that included in law is the ability to send the message of many things. This is part of the basis for seperate but equal is inherently unequal. The point is that even if you attempt to balance something, if the message it sends creates an inequality, then an inequality is there.


For the last bloody time, I am not saying they do not deserve compensation for what they have lost. I am only saying that specific damages are not the place to get that compensation. That's IT, that's all. They should be awarded for the full depth of their suffering.

I'm not saying you are. You keep repeating yourself, but you're not addressing the question here. Even if the compensation is evened out in some way, the act of claiming they should pay for a service they were denied and not given an equivalent of is ludicrous even if they somehow even it out some other way. It still says, you should be reimbursed for lost wages but we should deduct from that the cost of a service we denied you.




That award should come in the form of GENERAL damages, not specific ones. Just because specific damages do not cover this aspect doesn't mean it's NEVER covered. It is. General damages deal with that. General damages say "how much has he suffered for being in a bunk in prison not his own bed" General damages say "how much has he suffered for being in a cell not his own apartment?" General damages say "how much has he suffered for not having TV, internet, access to phone"

And we're not talking about suffering. I'm talking about paying for a service I didn't receive. Now if general damages want to say "how much was the loss of tv watching worth minus the fact he didn't have to pay for it?" then that would make sense. However, saying that he should pay for the tv and then be compensated for not watching it is ludicrous.


Those are all valid questions, those are all valid areas for compensation. But that compensation comes in the form of GENERAL damages, NOT specific damages.

Again, do you have an argument that isn't "it works this way and thus it must work this way"? We are saying it shouldn't work that way. How does repeating how it works address how it should work? It doesn't.


I'll give you an example. I take you to court. I had a wedding where you were the photographer. You provide me no photographs, so not only do I refuse to pay you, but I sue you for the fact that I have no photographs of my wedding.

Justice?
Judgement 1 - I pay for the photographs I didn't receive then he pays the value of the photographs to me.

Judgement 2 - He pays me the value of the photographs but with consideration for what those photographs would have cost me had I had them.

In judgement 1, it is suggested that I should have paid for the photographs I didn't receive.

In judgement 2, it is suggested that the value of the photographs is the difference between what I should have gotten and what that would have cost me.

If they said they were reimbursed for their living expenses based on what they should have enjoyed and what they got, no one be in an uproar, but the law and lawyers in the usual inconsiderate and insenstive fashion instead sends the message that these gentlemen should have their judgement reduced by the cost of their living expenses, which is exactly how many took it here. You can't deny it sends this message, because you see many people here receiving it.

Read...the fucking...article.

I did read the FUCKING article.


What expenses are they being compensated for? None. They are reducing the amount of specific monetary damages to account for money that these people would have paid had they not been in jail.

Sorry, the fact remains that they were in jail at the specific behest of Her Majesty's Government. To reduce the amount of a settlement based upon living expenses IF they remained in the real world is financial and legal doublespeak. The fact is THEY WERE NOT IN THE REAL WORLD. They were in prison at no choice of their own and further, their conviction was unjust. Read here, HM Government's fault. I am certain if they had their choice they would have preferred to have a real job, paying real rents and being free. But the fact remains, they had no choice.


There is a fundamental difference between this. I will repeat my hypothetical.

Let me ask you a question, real quick.

let's say you drive to work and back every day, the cost is $2 in gas, round trip, each day. One sunday evening you bang up your car, and have to take it to the shop.

The following monday, instead of driving to work, you must take a bus to work. The bus costs you nothing. You do not spend the $2 in gas.

That evening you go to pick up your repaired car and the bill is $100, which you pay.

How much poorer are you, in total for damaging your car? How much money would you have had, had you not damaged your car.

To continue that, suppose I was the one who damaged your car. HOw much specific damages do I owe you? How much poorer are you now than you would have been had the car never been damaged?

This is false example. Your premise is based upon voluntary participation in a free system, not confinement in a prison. Once more, they were not willing participants in a contract. The government mandated their confinement, thus they (the government) bear full responsibility for rents, electricity, etc, the whole lot falls on Her Majesty's Government.

(Oh, and if you banged up my car, you owe me 100.00 for my car repair bill plus my medical expenses and any lost time out of work)

There's nothing objective or pure about this. It is speculation. It's all about what you *might* have paid in rent, what you *might* have paid for food, what you *might* have paid in bills, what you *might* have paid in gas, etc.

It is as objective as it comes. If we can not get exact figures, we use estimates. We use actuary tables. Specific damages must be as objective as they possibly CAN be

There are always extra variables to include. That's the point.

Then include them.

Seems pretty useless if we aren't going to look at things as they actually exist instead of how they might exist in some ideal little world where nothing changes but a single factor and that single factor somehow has no effect whatsoever on anything else.

Then how the hell would you suggest? Because I MIGHT have stopped off at the 7-11 and bought myself a lottery ticket which MIGHT have one 300 million dollars, by you breaking my car I didn't stop and never bought the ticket I might have bought and never won the 300 million I might have won so you owe me 300 million?

Specific damages try to mirror reality as CLOSELY as possible, without including massively unknown and highly improbably variables such as you who never buys lottery tickets deciding "today's the day" and by fortune's fancy stricking it rich.

Your scheme requires omnipotence and the will to ignore realistic situations. In real life, we don't have idealizes situations - we have realistic ones.

No, because you're missing the point of WHO argues for those damages. If YOU think I have injured YOU it is your job to prove those damages. NOt speculate, not come up with wild hypotheticals, PROVE. If you think I have injured you, monetarily, for 300 million you need to PROVE that. You need to PROVE that you always buy the same lotto ticket, with the same numbers, and those numbers won.

If you wish to seek specific monetary awards from me you need to PROVE them. That's how the justice system works. It doesn't require the act of an omnipotent judge. It requires YOU being able to prove how you have been harmed. And if you can't prove how you've been harmed, you don't get that.

Why not? Because you can't prove it.

No, they aren't. How do you know what I would have done if things were different? You don't. It's impossible to know. We only know what did happen and what *might* have happened if things were different.

There's nothing objective or pure about this. It is speculation. It's all about what you *might* have paid in rent, what you *might* have paid for food, what you *might* have paid in bills, what you *might* have paid in gas, etc.

There is no "would" here. It is all "might." Seems rather subjective to me.


If uncertainty were enough to kill the right to compensation, there would never be any way to truly award damages.

Objective in this sense refers to dollars and cents, estimates based on purely economic terms. The purpose of specific damages is to put you back in the position you would have been in, had the wrong not been committed. There is no absolute way to determine that, ever. The courts must always make some guesses...but they make educated guesses, based on certain factors, in this case, loss of income minus cost of living.

Specific damages require a formula to explain how that figure was arrived at. It is easier to come up with this figure, because the factors, with certain assumptions in play (that they would have earned 'x' amount, assuming no death, disability, loss of employment etc getting in the way) ARE fairly objective.

Determining how much 'mental anguish' is worth is a LOT harder. But the requirements for coming up with a specific sum are also less rigorous, since the factors involved are a lot less objective. It is here, that inadequacies in specific compensation can be addressed.

Why did the courts decide to include living expenses as a factor in specific damages? It goes to the policy decision that this sort of compensation should not put you AHEAD of where you would have been had this wrong not occurred.

Other forms of compensation have no problem putting you ahead, but the courts want specific damages to remain limited in this way.

It is as objective as it comes. If we can not get exact figures, we use estimates. We use actuary tables. Specific damages must be as objective as they possibly CAN be

And that's right there is the rub. This isn't objective. I buy video games a lot. Should they guess at how much money I'll have left in a year after I buy those video games? I suppose you could just look at how much money I have in the bank on Jan. 1 and that would tell you how much of what I earned I didn't spend. However, you don't because for that money I didn't receive services that are necessary and so they aren't included. That's why in this judgement the judge specifically stated these services were necessary. So in the end, they get charged for a cadillac but got a pinto.

That's not objective. At all. I wouldn't necessarily have spent this money. That's really the point.

If they said they were reimbursed for their living expenses based on what they should have enjoyed and what they got, no one be in an uproar, but the law and lawyers in the usual inconsiderate and insenstive fashion instead sends the message that these gentlemen should have their judgement reduced by the cost of their living expenses, which is exactly how many took it here. You can't deny it sends this message, because you see many people here receiving it.

I don't give a damn about how it LOOKS. Couldn't give a shit. I care about justice, in the end, being done, not what people THINK about it.

Perhaps, in this instance, the scheme of awards being what it is, creates, on its face, some...odd results. As I said, it's knee jerk. It's people being imprisoned for years, denied their freedom, then the government coming in and arguing they should get LESS. That seem horrible. It seems outlandish

God damn it, it just seems WRONG.

But if we step back from the scenario, we can recognize that this scheme of seperate damages has evolved for a reason. Is it the perfect system for every occassion? No, of course not, nothing is. It is, however, the best system for the most number of occassions. And in reality, that's the best we can do. We try to make a system that works better than other systems, not one that works perfect all the time.

If we could make systems that work perfectly all the time, these men wouldn't have been in jail in the first place. The system of seperate damages exists because it works the most amount of times.

Well here we stumble on a special circumstance, one that stirs our emotions, inflames us, even scares us, the "what if it happened to us?" feeling. And it's gut wrenching.

But we must take care not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The system is the way it is because, overall, it creates the most justice. The fact that sometimes, in certain situation, it LOOKS funny (note, not even is bad, just LOOKS bad) is sometimes something we must endure for the sake of broader justice.

But we must take care not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The system is the way it is because, overall, it creates the most justice. The fact that sometimes, in certain situation, it LOOKS funny (note, not even is bad, just LOOKS bad) is sometimes something we must endure for the sake of broader justice.

Exactly. Specific damages are a hell of a lot easier to prove than many general damages are. Fucking with the specific damage regime means possible removing it as a tool to get compensation. Factoring in all sorts of crazy variables, things that can never be proven, things that can never be known, simply undermine the foundation of that particular category of damages. Now, it might seem more 'fair'...but in the end, what you'll have is a regime that is less likely to actually work for the person seeking compensation, because of the amount of uncertainty introduced into it.

In terms of general damages...how can you possibly put a price on the deprivation of freedom? How can you possible compensate someone for that with dollars (or pounds)? You can't. Nothing is going to give these men their lives back, no amount of money is going to return them to the time before they were unjustly imprisoned.

The system is aware of this. It is aware that the best we can offer is an apology, a sum of money, and possible punitive damages against the state so they work to ensure such fuck-ups don't occur in the future.

How can ANY sum under the general damages system be truly just? How could we possibly ensure that?

We can't. We approximate. And yet all of you seem to accept this approximation as alright. You hang yourselves up on a specific category, and completely ignore that the bulk of their award comes from a completely different source...one that is even hardly to understand than specific damages (which are fairly simplistic).

The judges explained why the specific damages were reduced. You don't like the explanation.

Yet you have no idea how the figure for general damages was arrived at. Do you like the outcome there, because there is nothing to tweak your outrage?

If uncertainty were enough to kill the right to compensation, there would never be any way to truly award damages.

I very much agree with this statement. It's an excellent point. However, uncertainty means that it either has to admit it's uncertain at the level it is or one can't claim objectivity. Specifically, in this case, the judge suggested it was much more certain than it really is.

I like a girl with a nice rebuttal.

:D

I like a girl with a nice rebuttal.

I make 50k a year, my expenses are 10k, I am left with 40k.

That's all well and good if it actually happens. But, if you're looking at specific damages for that time period, that means it didn't happen. There's no way to know that you would have had 10k in expenses. It might have been 5k. It might have been 15k. Who knows?

You really seem to want to pretend that we have some sort of way to know, with certainty, what would have happened. We don't. It is impossible. The numbers that go into this calculation are at least somewhat arbitrary and are pretty much guaranteed to err, no matter what.

It is as objective as it comes. If we can not get exact figures, we use estimates. We use actuary tables. Specific damages must be as objective as they possibly CAN be

And since we know for a fact that we won't be exact (as we can't), I think it is better to go ahead and err on the side of the person seeking damages.

Then include them.

You can't. Even the person seeking damages isn't going to know every variable that would go into a true calculation here. In fact, nobody is. None of us can know exactly how that ride on the bus, rather than in their car, and the added time of going to get the car has affected their monetary status. All we have are estimates and maybes.

Then how the hell would you suggest? Because I MIGHT have stopped off at the 7-11 and bought myself a lottery ticket which MIGHT have one 300 million dollars, by you breaking my car I didn't stop and never bought the ticket I might have bought and never won the 300 million I might have won so you owe me 300 million?

Now you're beginning to see the problem. Good.


Specific damages try to mirror reality as CLOSELY as possible, without including massively unknown and highly improbably variables such as you who never buys lottery tickets deciding "today's the day" and by fortune's fancy stricking it rich.

They mirror reality based on somewhat arbitrarily chosen values and will always be off. I simply think that the error should always be on the side of the person who has been harmed. So we ignore the amounts that they might have spent. We can't know what they were.

No, because you're missing the point of WHO argues for those damages.

No, I'm not. All I'm doing is erring on the side of the harmed, rather than the person who harmed them.

If YOU think I have injured YOU it is your job to prove those damages.

Indeed. And, in many cases, I can. I can show you the repair bill. I can show you the hospital bill. In the case of lost wages, it gets a little more fuzzy, but I can reasonably demonstrate what I make in your average day/week/month/etc., so we can get a value for that.

But the "charges" that you would then argue for are nothing but pure speculation. You're talking about what I *might* have spent if you hadn't screwed up and harmed me so that you don't have to pay out as much money. Sure, you can base that on an average amount of miles and an average gas price or an average cost of living or something like that. But you can never know what I really would have spent, and you are the one who has wronged me (in this case). So your considerations mean a whole lot less in the matter of how much you owe me, especially since they are, by nature, based in speculation.

NOt speculate, not come up with wild hypotheticals, PROVE.

There is no way to PROVE anything. You can reasonably back it up, perhaps, but you can't PROVE it. If that's what you're going to rely on, then there is no way to do anything at all.

Meanwhile, fine. If you want to take living costs off this compensation, you have to PROVE that they would have spent that much. You have to PROVE that there is no way they would have spent less. You have to PROVE that $2 was saved in the car example. You have to PROVE that there are no other variables to add in.

Have fun trying to do the impossible....

And that's right there is the rub. This isn't objective. I buy video games a lot. Should they guess at how much money I'll have left in a year after I buy those video games? I suppose you could just look at how much money I have in the bank on Jan. 1 and that would tell you how much of what I earned I didn't spend. However, you don't because for that money I didn't receive services that are necessary and so they aren't included. That's why in this judgement the judge specifically stated these services were necessary. So in the end, they get charged for a cadillac but got a pinto.

In a general sense perhaps, but then you also get to recover back the value that you had lost driving a pinto, when you really wanted a cadillac, which is always, AT LEAST the difference between them, often more.

To do it another way would double dip. You'd get the money you would have spent, AND recover the value of what you had lost, which is always going to be at least the value of the first one.

You get to recover twice. One of those has got to give. Either we deduct the money that would have been spent, then compensate for value loss, or we don't deduct the money spent, but compensate for value lost - cost.

Let's go back to your video game analogy. We say that you derive pleasure from playing games. Now if you are jailed...no games.

The pleasure you get from playing games is AT LEAST the value of the game, right? Otherwise, why would you buy them? So the value you get from playing video games is cost of game + some intrinsic value of joy you get above and beyond the cost (let's call this intrinsic value X and the cost of the game Y).

So the sum total value of the game, to you, is X + Y.

The value you have from holding that game and playing it is it's cost, and whatever extra emotional value...X + Y.

If you were to lose your income, you would lose X, correct?

So we can do this one of two ways. We can say, you went to jail and lost your income, X.

You also lost that intrinsic emotional joy and pleasure you get from playing games. This is Y. We can not give you the joy back, but we have to give you money to compensate for your lack of enjoyment. So this money is monetarily equivalent to Y. We'll call this Y(m), for the monetary equivalent.

So we owe you X + Y(m). here you go, here's X + Y(m)

What we CAN NOT do is say "we took from you your income X, AND we took from you the fully value of the game, X + Y, so we owe yu X+X+Y(m)"

That's why you need to discount.

The value of an apartment to me is again Y That's it, the the joy of living on my own.

NOw let's say I make an income Z. After I pay my rent on the apartment my income is Z-X. But I have the joy of living in my own apartment. So my total value is Z-X+Y. THat's exactly what I have. My income Z, minus the cost of living X, plus some intrinsic joy of having my life the way it is, Y.

The combination of money in my pocket and joy in my life is Z-X+Y.

I get falsely arrested. The idea of compensation is to put me EXACTLY WHERE I WOULD HAVE BEEN had I not been arrested.

Now again, they can't give me the joy back, they can only give me a monetary value close to what i have lost. This again is Y(m) so Y(m) takes the place of Y.

If, had I never been arrested, had in my life Z-X+Y, then what is the best the prison can ever give me, so as to put me as close as to where I would have been?

Z-X+Y(m).

Or rather (Z-x)+Y(m)

Z-X is the specific damages, Y(m) is the general damages.

You say we shouldn't discount, give me Z+Y(m)

But if you give me Z+Y(m) I in fact have MORE than I would have. How am I compensated if I end up with more? That's not what compensation means.

So you have to take away X, somewhere, at some time. It has to be. Otherwise i double dip, I get more than I would have.

And whether it's (Z-X) +Y(m) or (Z) + (Y(m)- X) doesn't REALLY matter, the value is the same. Legal standards have evolved such that the cost is taken out of the specific damages.

You could take it out of non specific damages too, but then you're just muddling the waters as to what does what.

If I would have had Z-X+Y then I must get as CLOSE to Z-X+Y as possible. In this case, since they can't give me back my joy, they can give me money.

So the closest we get to Z-X+Y is Z-X+Y(m). That's as close as it's gonna get.

And since specific damages deal with hard cold money, real dollar figures (The Z and the X) and general damages deal with more attempts to compensate for non monetary loss (the Y(m)) it's better to take hard cold dollar amounts away from that which deals with hard cold dollar amounts, namely, specific damages.

To not take it away AT ALL leaves me with Z+Y(m) which, in fact, is MORE than I would have had to begin with.

And that's not really compensating is it? That's punishing. And if you wish to punish, there's a place for THAT too.

That's punitive awards.

If uncertainty were enough to kill the right to compensation, there would never be any way to truly award damages.

It isn't enough to kill the right to compensation. I just think we should err on the side of the person harmed, so speculation as to what they might have spent probably shouldn't be included.

Why did the courts decide to include living expenses as a factor in specific damages? It goes to the policy decision that this sort of compensation should not put you AHEAD of where you would have been had this wrong not occurred.

By it's very nature, it's either going to put you ahead or put you behind. The idea that it would be exact is absurd. I'd rather see it err on the side of ahead, since the person harmed was, well, harmed.

The system is the way it is because, overall, it creates the most justice.

Does it? Are you sure?


Exactly. Specific damages are a hell of a lot easier to prove than many general damages are.

How do you prove them? How do you know exactly what would have happened if things had been totally different?

Fucking with the specific damage regime means possible removing it as a tool to get compensation. Factoring in all sorts of crazy variables, things that can never be proven, things that can never be known, simply undermine the foundation of that particular category of damages.

By it's very nature, the calculation of specific damages includes things that can never be proven and things that can never be known. It's all basically guesses at what might have happened.

You and Arthias are both trying to pretend that specific damages are somehow not speculative. Of course they are. They are trying to pay for what might have happened in another world where the harm being compensated for didn't occur. So we peg a bunch of possibilities and say, "This is what we're going to assume, since we don't really know."

This calculation is, by its very nature, going to err either in favor of the person harmed or the person paying damages. Considering that the person who was harmed is the one who deserves a just compensation, I would think that going ahead and erring on their side would be a good thing.

I don't give a damn about how it LOOKS. Couldn't give a shit. I care about justice, in the end, being done, not what people THINK about it.

For someone who is wronged, justice very much includes how it looks. If I seperate all of my employees out by race, even if I treat them fairly and equally and even if they would have been divided in as many groups in an equally arbitrary way, it's specifically unjust BECAUSE of how it looks. You cannot seperate justice from perception.


Perhaps, in this instance, the scheme of awards being what it is, creates, on its face, some...odd results. As I said, it's knee jerk. It's people being imprisoned for years, denied their freedom, then the government coming in and arguing they should get LESS. That seem horrible. It seems outlandish

God damn it, it just seems WRONG.

However, the government did argue that they deserved less and that they deserved less as a result of the cost of living. For a government, the appearance of a lack of justice is a big deal. We give a lot of faith to the idea of justice and that we see it occurring should be of concern to everyone involved. The message a ruling sends is very important and most good judges recognize this. It should stop them from awarding individual justice but to pretend that it doesn't matter is silly.



But if we step back from the scenario, we can recognize that this scheme of seperate damages has evolved for a reason. Is it the perfect system for every occassion? No, of course not, nothing is. It is, however, the best system for the most number of occassions. And in reality, that's the best we can do. We try to make a system that works better than other systems, not one that works perfect all the time.

Again, it's there so it's right. What's the reason it developed? Why is it better than what is proposed? Because it's there.


If we could make systems that work perfectly all the time, these men wouldn't have been in jail in the first place. The system of seperate damages exists because it works the most amount of times.

Well here we stumble on a special circumstance, one that stirs our emotions, inflames us, even scares us, the "what if it happened to us?" feeling. And it's gut wrenching.

But we must take care not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The system is the way it is because, overall, it creates the most justice. The fact that sometimes, in certain situation, it LOOKS funny (note, not even is bad, just LOOKS bad) is sometimes something we must endure for the sake of broader justice.

But you've not shown any of that. These are facts not in evidence. The fact that it developed doesn't support your claim it is a good thing. You've not demonstrated any of these claims or how it's more logical or more just.

You really seem to want to pretend that we have some sort of way to know, with certainty, what would have happened. We don't. It is impossible. The numbers that go into this calculation are at least somewhat arbitrary and are pretty much guaranteed to err, no matter what.
If 'objective' and 'subjective' meant in legal terms what you believe they do, the system would never, ever work.

You'll have to accept that these terms are used differently than they are in scientific parlance. The judges are not claiming omnipotence by using the term 'objective'.

Determining appropriate remedies for wrongs always will be an imperfect art.

But when determining what someone likely would have earned over a period of years is certainly not impossible, simply because the end result is never going to be exactly accurate.

But guess what. We live in a world where results are never guaranteed to be wholly accurate.

The muffin I ate for breakfast...how did the vendor arrive at the price he charged me? Is that price an accurate, wholly accurate, wholly objective summation of its worth?

Fuck no. But it works.

We can never know all the variables when determining what MIGHT HAVE BEEN. But we can speculate, with fair success. Moreso in specific damages, because the amounts are calculated in accordance to detailed information that can be tied into various factors, like average wages in a certain area, inflation, etc. We get to go off on a more windy road and speculate in more broad 'subjective' terms when it comes to things like emotional distress etc.

But no one in the legal system is actually making the claim that you seem to be refuting...that somehow, damages can be determined absolutely objectively, taking all factors into account.

And yet...it works.

And since we know for a fact that we won't be exact (as we can't), I think it is better to go ahead and err on the side of the person seeking damages.

No, of course not. We er on the side of justice. To by default err on the side of the one seeking damages is to typically pay someone more than they deserve.

Now I know the default human condition is to sympathize with the harmed, but why should anyone get MORE than they deserve.



You can't. Even the person seeking damages isn't going to know every variable that would go into a true calculation here. In fact, nobody is. None of us can know exactly how that ride on the bus, rather than in their car, and the added time of going to get the car has affected their monetary status. All we have are estimates and maybes.



No, I'm not. All I'm doing is erring on the side of the harmed, rather than the person who harmed them.

Justice demands that you err on NOBODY's side. That you evaluate EACH instance and see what has been demonstrated. It's nice that you feel sympathy and would take the side of the injured. Justice doesn't work that way. Justice demands that if you think you are owed something, you demonstrate that. If you are successful in that demonstration, you can be owed.

You are changing the entire damned standard of proof for the entire justice system. To "err on the side of the injured" is to shift the burden of proof to the defense.

Thats exactly what you would do here. You would leave it to the defense to demonstrate they DID NOT cause harm rather than the plaintiff to prove that he WAS harmed.

That's exactly what "err on the side of the injured" means, it means to create a presumption AGAINST the defense. To create a presumption FOR the plaintiff.

What kind of fucked up system of civil law is that when the burden of proof is on the accused and not the accuser?

Seriously, don't want to live in any legal system you've designed.

There is no way to PROVE anything. You can reasonably back it up, perhaps, but you can't PROVE it. If that's what you're going to rely on, then there is no way to do anything at all.

Now you are just being stupid. There is such a thing called context. When I refer to civil suits, and discuss proof, surely I am refering to the standard of proof necessary to win a civil case. That's kind of a "duh" moment isn't it? When I say the word "prove" in a context, and that context has a clear definition for what "prove" means, clearly I mean that definition.

And in this case proof in a civil instance is proof, more likely than not.

Meanwhile, fine. If you want to take living costs off this compensation, you have to PROVE that they would have spent that much. You have to PROVE that there is no way they would have spent less. You have to PROVE that $2 was saved in the car example. You have to PROVE that there are no other variables to add in.

Have fun trying to do the impossible....

Prove, more likely than not, which is exactly the standard of civil law, which is exactly the standard we have been dealing with the entire thread.

prove more likely than not that this is his expenses? Fine, I analyze your living habits, analyze average cost of living in the location, look at where you were living, what your bills with, average in inflation and typical moving trends and viola, estimates that are accurate, more likely than not.

Which is identical, in a civil law context, to say it has been proven, since more likely than not is exacty the standard of proof we've been dealing with the entire time.

In a general sense perhaps, but then you also get to recover back the value that you had lost driving a pinto, when you really wanted a cadillac, which is always, AT LEAST the difference between them, often more.

To do it another way would double dip. You'd get the money you would have spent, AND recover the value of what you had lost, which is always going to be at least the value of the first one.

You get to recover twice. One of those has got to give. Either we deduct the money that would have been spent, then compensate for value loss, or we don't deduct the money spent, but compensate for value lost - cost.

Let's go back to your video game analogy. We say that you derive pleasure from playing games. Now if you are jailed...no games.

The pleasure you get from playing games is AT LEAST the value of the game, right? Otherwise, why would you buy them? So the value you get from playing video games is cost of game + some intrinsic value of joy you get above and beyond the cost (let's call this intrinsic value X and the cost of the game Y).

So the sum total value of the game, to you, is X + Y.

The value you have from holding that game and playing it is it's cost, and whatever extra emotional value...X + Y.

If you were to lose your income, you would lose X, correct?

So we can do this one of two ways. We can say, you went to jail and lost your income, X.

You also lost that intrinsic emotional joy and pleasure you get from playing games. This is Y. We can not give you the joy back, but we have to give you money to compensate for your lack of enjoyment. So this money is monetarily equivalent to Y. We'll call this Y(m), for the monetary equivalent.

So we owe you X + Y(m). here you go, here's X + Y(m)

What we CAN NOT do is say "we took from you your income X, AND we took from you the fully value of the game, X + Y, so we owe yu X+X+Y(m)"

That's why you need to discount.

The value of an apartment to me is again Y That's it, the the joy of living on my own.

NOw let's say I make an income Z. After I pay my rent on the apartment my income is Z-X. But I have the joy of living in my own apartment. So my total value is Z-X+Y. THat's exactly what I have. My income Z, minus the cost of living X, plus some intrinsic joy of having my life the way it is, Y.

The combination of money in my pocket and joy in my life is Z-X+Y.

I get falsely arrested. The idea of compensation is to put me EXACTLY WHERE I WOULD HAVE BEEN had I not been arrested.

Now again, they can't give me the joy back, they can only give me a monetary value close to what i have lost. This again is Y(m) so Y(m) takes the place of Y.

If, had I never been arrested, had in my life Z-X+Y, then what is the best the prison can ever give me, so as to put me as close as to where I would have been?

Z-X+Y(m).

Or rather (Z-x)+Y(m)

Z-X is the specific damages, Y(m) is the general damages.

You say we shouldn't discount, give me Z+Y(m)

But if you give me Z+Y(m) I in fact have MORE than I would have. How am I compensated if I end up with more? That's not what compensation means.

So you have to take away X, somewhere, at some time. It has to be. Otherwise i double dip, I get more than I would have.

And whether it's (Z-X) +Y(m) or (Z) + (Y(m)- X) doesn't REALLY matter, the value is the same. Legal standards have evolved such that the cost is taken out of the specific damages.

You could take it out of non specific damages too, but then you're just muddling the waters as to what does what.

If I would have had Z-X+Y then I must get as CLOSE to Z-X+Y as possible. In this case, since they can't give me back my joy, they can give me money.

So the closest we get to Z-X+Y is Z-X+Y(m). That's as close as it's gonna get.

And since specific damages deal with hard cold money, real dollar figures (The Z and the X) and general damages deal with more attempts to compensate for non monetary loss (the Y(m)) it's better to take hard cold dollar amounts away from that which deals with hard cold dollar amounts, namely, specific damages.

To not take it away AT ALL leaves me with Z+Y(m) which, in fact, is MORE than I would have had to begin with.

And that's not really compensating is it? That's punishing. And if you wish to punish, there's a place for THAT too.

That's punitive awards.

You see, I don't want to double dip. That's the point.

Here, going back to your analogy. And using your same figures. So X is the intrinsic value of the video game over and above the cost or, more specifically, the difference between what I got versus what I spent, the value of the game to me. You say we look at x + Y and then we eventually address the fact that I didn't spend Y, but I'm saying that we should just receive X. No double dipping. I get compensated in general compensation for the intrinsic value. Calculate it there. I don't get charged for the video game first, without receiving, and then deduct that cost later. It's ludicrous and unnecessary, because you have to calculate X no matter how you look at it, so just calculate X and give me that.

No double-dipping, no punitive (which, in general, I don't agree with). Just a compensation for what I would have gained by being on the outside. X.

For someone who is wronged, justice very much includes how it looks. If I seperate all of my employees out by race, even if I treat them fairly and equally and even if they would have been divided in as many groups in an equally arbitrary way, it's specifically unjust BECAUSE of how it looks. You cannot seperate justice from perception.

Bullshit I can't. If one is fairly compensated for his injuries, this is justice. I don't give a crap if someone THINKS he isn't fairly compensated. He has been.

I most certainly CAN seperate justice from perception. In fact, I would hazard to say that justice must, at ALL COSTS, be seperated from perception.

Perception of reality without facts leads to assumptions. Assumptions without factual support are toxic to the legal system.

However, the government did argue that they deserved less and that they deserved less as a result of the cost of living. For a government, the appearance of a lack of justice is a big deal. We give a lot of faith to the idea of justice and that we see it occurring should be of concern to everyone involved. The message a ruling sends is very important and most good judges recognize this.

No, very very very BAD judges recognize this. Good judges pursue justice, not what the public might THINK justice is.

Again, it's there so it's right. What's the reason it developed? Why is it better than what is proposed? Because it's there.

Reversal in order, it's there because it is the best system. I don't really have the time to go into the evolution of law and legal precident. Do your own research.

I don't defend it because it's there. I defend it because I am education, I have been exposed to the law and legal system, because I know how they work, because I have studied their histories, because I have a damned degree in comparative political and legal theory.

I know it is best because I have spent YEARS of my life studying this very thing, I have a doctorate in effectivly, the study of law and legal system.

I don't have time to distill years of education in a forum for you. Do your own research.

But you've not shown any of that. These are facts not in evidence. The fact that it developed doesn't support your claim it is a good thing. You've not demonstrated any of these claims or how it's more logical or more just.

We have all made assumptions based on facts not in evidence I have assumed that the justice system here worked as it was supposed to and that final compensation will be based on situations of fairness.

In short, I assume the government is working more or less as it should.

I did not do what most here did and go "OMG wrongfully arrested people are now having their compensation reduced, insult on to injury, oh the injustice!"

We both make assumptions, I tend to err on the side of the legal system, because, in my experience, the legal system, after much churning and grumbling and fumbling tends to get it right, more often than not.

You and Arthias are both trying to pretend that specific damages are somehow not speculative. Of course they are. They are trying to pay for what might have happened in another world where the harm being compensated for didn't occur. So we peg a bunch of possibilities and say, "This is what we're going to assume, since we don't really know."
No, Dem, we aren't trying to pretend any such thing. YOU are making the assertion that because it is not so, it doesn't work. We are attempting to show you how, despite the inherent flaws that we recognise, it absolutely CAN work. Of course specific damages are speculative. But they are specifically speculative, and they don't need to take into account things like...what would have happened if they'd fallen down stairs and couldn't work for three months, and what would have happened if they'd found a big wad of cash in the gutter what day, and what would have happened if they'd all married rich lawyers and had forty kids each and so on and so forth.

Look at it this way. You contract with me, to have me paint your house. You are going to pay me $2000 to do this, and you will supply the paint. Before I can even begin, I fall down and break my leg, and can't fulfill the contract. You don't let me out of it, and you sue me for breach of contract.

You can't take the paint back, they won't accept it, so you're out the money for the paint. You sue me for that amount, and win. You are back in the position you were in before we entered into the contract. Proving what you were owed in that situation is easy as hell...you show your receipt for the paint.

Now would it be fair for you to get money on top of that? Well, if you want it, you need to make a case for it.

Say you can't get anyone else to paint your house, and you were counting on the fresh coat to attract buyers for your home. You're up shit creek, because now you're being offered about $5000 less for your home than the real estate agent said you'd be getting with a fresh coat of paint.

That is a harder case to make against me, but not entirely impossible. It's just going to take more speculation, and you'll have to introduce a lot more evidence (testimony of the real estate agent maybe, offers of purchase at the reduced price, proof that no one else will paint your house etc).

But you should not be able to simply make these claims, on top of the claim for the cost of the paint, and somehow end up in a BETTER position than you were in before you entered into the contract.

Blending the damages you are asking for into one lump only serves to muddle the issue of proof even more, and makes it less likely for you to be successful over all in your claim against me.

At a MINIMUM you should have the certainty that if I breach my contract with you, you will be due certain expenses based on deprivation on your part, and that proving your case in this situation is not going to involve a crazy amount of speculative evidence.

We don't need to start speculating about how someone might have stolen your paint, or sold it to you at a fantastic discount had you simply shopped elsewhere, or whatever. We can simply look at what it probably cost (say you lost your receipt) and award you that amount. Done.

Not exact. But close enough.

You see, I don't want to double dip. That's the point.

Here, going back to your analogy. And using your same figures. So X is the intrinsic value of the video game over and above the cost or, more specifically, the difference between what I got versus what I spent,

no, nonononono.

X, in this example, is the sticker price of the game.

Y is the value of the video game, over and above the cost (which is x). Y is the difference between what you got and what you spent.

X is the sticker price. Y is value above that sticker price, for you.

You got my example backwards.

I can't really addres sthis because I"m getting confused here. As I said, in these examples:

Z is your income
X is the sticker cost
Y is the intrinsic value to you above and beyond the cost.

If you buy a game, you have, after purchasing that game, Z-X+Y. Your income, minus the cost of the game, plus the intrinsic value to you.

If you rent an apartment you have, after doing so, Z-X+Y.

Your income (Z) minus the cost of the apartment (X) plus the intrinsic value to you (Y).

Which, had you been freed and not in jail, is what you WOULD have had. Z-X+Y

And Y(m) is the monetary equivalent of that intrinsic special value to you, which can not be returned directly and can only be compensated for monetarily.

If you were never in jail, you would have had, in the end Z-X+Y.

Income, minus cost of living, plus your intrinsic value of that life.

You should get BACK Z-X+Y(m), income, minus costs of living, plus monetary compensation to compensate for the loss of that intrinsic value which can not be returned

What do you suggest one end up with? Here's where you lost me.

no, nonononono.

X, in this example, is the sticker price of the game.

Y is the value of the video game, over and above the cost (which is x). Y is the difference between what you got and what you spent.

X is the sticker price. Y is value above that sticker price, for you.

You got my example backwards.

I can't really addres sthis because I"m getting confused here. As I said, in these examples:

Z is your income
X is the sticker cost
Y is the intrinsic value to you above and beyond the cost.

If you buy a game, you have, after purchasing that game, Z-X+Y. Your income, minus the cost of the game, plus the intrinsic value to you.

If you rent an apartment you have, after doing so, Z-X+Y.

Your income (Z) minus the cost of the apartment (X) plus the intrinsic value to you (Y).

Which, had you been freed and not in jail, is what you WOULD have had. Z-X+Y

And Y(m) is the monetary equivalent of that intrinsic special value to you, which can not be returned directly and can only be compensated for monetarily.

If you were never in jail, you would have had, in the end Z-X+Y.

Income, minus cost of living, plus your intrinsic value of that life.

You should get BACK Z-X+Y(m), income, minus costs of living, plus monetary compensation to compensate for the loss of that intrinsic value which can not be returned

What do you suggest one end up with? Here's where you lost me.

I did get your example backwards and somehow my backwardsness infected your original post, huh?

some intrinsic value of joy you get above and beyond the cost (let's call this intrinsic value X and the cost of the game Y).
So the sum total value of the game, to you, is X + Y.

If you don't listen to your argument, why should I?

Meanwhile, using your example, it would be (Z - Y) + (X + Y). Because I would have my income then pay for the game Z-Y. Then I would get the total value of the game (X+Y) to me back. Thus the actual compensation would Z + X. It's really very simple math. I know you're only a lawyer, but you can do math, can you not? Thus, Z + X is the proper compensation and skips of the unjust method of charging for an service I never received.

But guess what. We live in a world where results are never guaranteed to be wholly accurate.

Precisely my point. And since we know this - we KNOW there will always be error, it seems to me that we should always err on the side of the harmed, as having the error go the other way would be wronging them yet again.

But no one in the legal system is actually making the claim that you seem to be refuting...that somehow, damages can be determined absolutely objectively, taking all factors into account.

Arthias certainly seems to be trying to claim that specific damages do just this on the monetary end.

And yet...it works.

To a point. But does it work well? Most likely, at least 50% of the time, we're actually undercutting what the harmed person really would have had. In the case of a day off of work, that little bit might not make that much of a difference overall. In the case of 10 lost years, on the other hand, those little errors can add up into huge ones.


No, of course not. We er on the side of justice.

Impossible. We are going to err. In your system, we don't even know if we err on the side of the harmed or the person who caused the harm. But we do know that we erred.

To by default err on the side of the one seeking damages is to typically pay someone more than they deserve.

...which is better than paying them less than they deserve. It's either/or. At least, if we intentionally err on their side, then we fairly well guarantee we don't err by paying them less.

Now I know the default human condition is to sympathize with the harmed, but why should anyone get MORE than they deserve.

In a perfect world, they wouldn't. But any system we devise is either going to give them more or less. Considering that they are the person who has been harmed, more is better.

Justice demands that you err on NOBODY's side.

Impossible. You're going to err on somebody's side no matter what.

That you evaluate EACH instance and see what has been demonstrated. It's nice that you feel sympathy and would take the side of the injured. Justice doesn't work that way. Justice demands that if you think you are owed something, you demonstrate that. If you are successful in that demonstration, you can be owed.

I'm not saying that a person shouldn't have to show that they are owed that money. I'm saying that the person paying it shouldn't be able to reduce the amount of money they owe by speculating on what the harmed person might have spent some of it on.

You are changing the entire damned standard of proof for the entire justice system. To "err on the side of the injured" is to shift the burden of proof to the defense.

Not at all. By the time you get to the point that you are calculating damages, the defense has already failed. They have been found guilty, as it were. They have been legally found to be at fault for the harm caused. Now it's just a matter of figuring out precisely how much they have to pay for it.

Thats exactly what you would do here. You would leave it to the defense to demonstrate they DID NOT cause harm rather than the plaintiff to prove that he WAS harmed.

Once again, not at all. I'm talking about the "sentencing phase", or as close to it as you get in civil cases. The determination that the defendant has actually caused harm has already been made. Now we're just figuring out the exact amount of compensation they must pay.

Now you are just being stupid. There is such a thing called context. When I refer to civil suits, and discuss proof, surely I am refering to the standard of proof necessary to win a civil case. That's kind of a "duh" moment isn't it? When I say the word "prove" in a context, and that context has a clear definition for what "prove" means, clearly I mean that definition.

Maybe if you hadn't put it in all caps like it meant something more than that, your point would have been better made, eh?

Bleh, somehow I inverted those and didn't catch it. What I said would have made no sense in the variables that followed...so I guess we're both confused.

So for the sake of it, X is the cost, Y is the intrinsic value above and beyond that cost. Z is income.

With that said, what's your argument exactly? THis is turning into alphabet soup.

That I should get the income plus the intrinsic value I was denied. To copy what I wrote above -

Meanwhile, using your example, it would be (Z - Y) + (X + Y). Because I would have my income then pay for the game Z-Y. Then I would get the total value of the game (X+Y) to me back. Thus the actual compensation would Z + X. It's really very simple math. I know you're only a lawyer, but you can do math, can you not? Thus, Z + X is the proper compensation and skips of the unjust method of charging for an service I never received.

Sorry, I edited it after you'd started your reply.

I did get your example backwards and somehow my backwardsness infected your original post, huh?


Bleh, somehow I inverted those and didn't catch it. What I said would have made no sense in the variables that followed...so I guess we're both confused.

So for the sake of it, X is the cost, Y is the intrinsic value above and beyond that cost. Z is income.

With that said, what's your argument exactly? THis is turning into alphabet soup.

Meanwhile, using your example, it would be (Z - Y) + (X + Y).

Where the hell is THIS coming from is the question.

If Z is income, Y is cost and X is the value I get, beyond the cost, when I buy something i am left with

Z-Y+X

I said this as Z-X+Y because we swapped the X and Y values somewhere. Either way, doesn't matter.

Were he not to have been arrested he would have been left with income, minus cost of living, plus the intrinsic value of that which he had purchased.

How in ANY way can you disagree with this? In what version of logic does anything other than what i just said make sense?

Precisely my point. And since we know this - we KNOW there will always be error, it seems to me that we should always err on the side of the harmed, as having the error go the other way would be wronging them yet again. It has already been pointed out to you that the burden of proof in civil actions is on the person or persons claiming damages.

As in my contract example. Saying, 'we know that specific claims are going to err in some way, somehow so you should give me MORE money than I can prove I am due, just so you don't wrong me again' is ridiculous.

You paid a certain amount for the paint. You lost the receipt, and can't prove how much...but the court doesn't say, 'fuck off then, no money', they make an estimate based on average market value, and you get it. Maybe you get less, maybe you get more. But on the balance of probabilities, you get about what you should.


Arthias certainly seems to be trying to claim that specific damages do just this on the monetary end. Then you haven't actually been reading what he's been posting on the subject.


To a point. But does it work well? Most likely, at least 50% of the time, we're actually undercutting what the harmed person really would have had. In the case of a day off of work, that little bit might not make that much of a difference overall. In the case of 10 lost years, on the other hand, those little errors can add up into huge ones. HENCE THE NEED FOR GENERAL DAMAGES ON TOP.

Stop ignoring this issue, and focusing solely on what you deem to be the drawbacks of specific damages.

General damages are there to do precisely what you are advocating....speculate in favour of the wronged.

Taken together, the various compensation schemes pretty much cover all the angles. Taken apart, no single scheme fully works.

So stop taking them apart...because that's not what is happening here.

Bullshit I can't. If one is fairly compensated for his injuries, this is justice. I don't give a crap if someone THINKS he isn't fairly compensated. He has been.

You mean you think he has been? In your perception, he has been?

I most certainly CAN seperate justice from perception. In fact, I would hazard to say that justice must, at ALL COSTS, be seperated from perception.

Good luck with that.

Perception of reality without facts leads to assumptions. Assumptions without factual support are toxic to the legal system.

Even with facts, you are making assumptions and using perception. To pretend otherwise is ludicrous.


YOU are making the assertion that because it is not so, it doesn't work.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that I think that, because it is not so, it would be safer to ensure that we err on the side of the person being harmed. It works. It probably works pretty well in most cases - especially short term cases. But is it the best? I'm not convinced.

We are attempting to show you how, despite the inherent flaws that we recognise, it absolutely CAN work.

I've seen you recognize them. I've yet to see Arthias, with his idealistic sense of justice, recognize any such thing.

Of course specific damages are speculative. But they are specifically speculative, and they don't need to take into account things like...what would have happened if they'd fallen down stairs and couldn't work for three months, and what would have happened if they'd found a big wad of cash in the gutter what day, and what would have happened if they'd all married rich lawyers and had forty kids each and so on and so forth.

I'm not saying that they should. In fact, I'm saying that we should cut down on the amount of speculation used, not add to it.

The rest of your post is along these exact same lines, and has virtually nothing to do with what I have been saying.

I'm not saying that the person who is harmed should be able to speculate wildly. I'm saying that the person who caused the harm should not be allowed to speculate. To take your example and make it relevant, let's say that the painter wanted to speculate that he actually saved you money by not coming to paint, because you didn't have to wait at the house for him and thus got more done that day. He then puts an amount on this and argues that he owes you less because breaking the contract actually saved you some money. THAT is the kind of speculation I'm having a problem with - speculation on the part of the person at fault who then has to pay less than what the harmed has demonstrated they lost.

Once again, not at all. I'm talking about the "sentencing phase", or as close to it as you get in civil cases. The determination that the defendant has actually caused harm has already been made. Now we're just figuring out the exact amount of compensation they must pay.

Of which there is a burden of proof. That's the whole damned point. You seem to be under the impression one says "I am harmed, now figure out what he owes me!"

No, not at all. This is stupid. There is no "sentencing phase" in civil law, the comparison doesn't work. A sentencing phase means that guilt has been determined and then the judge decides an appropriate penalty. The prosecution doesn't try to argue WHY there should be a certain penalty, they only argue THAT a crime has been committed.

In civil law you don't just argue that you have been harmed. You must also plead, and prove, your damages.

That's the entire point. If you wish to receive damages, you have to ask for the damages you think you should receive, then prove them. The amount of damages in question is a crucial part of the claim. It's not like someone just pulls a number out of a hat. The plaintiffs have to prove that they are owed this money.

If they can't prove it, they don't get it. I'm not erring on the side of the injured, I'm not erring on the side of the injurer. In fact i'm not erring on the side of ANYONE.

Civil law doesn't "err" on the side of anyone. It decides the matter in favor of the party that best proved their case. That's the point. There's no "err"ing involved. Did you prove it? Yes? You get it. No? You don't.

You have to plead and prove your damages. We can only give you what you prove you deserve, and not one penny more. That's how a system of justice works. Your system isn't justice, it isn't fairness, it doesn't require a burden of proof. It's "oh, we like you, and we feel bad for you, so we're going to give you money".

No, sorry, doesn't work that way. I don't err on the side of the defense. I don't err on the side of the plaintiff. I say that the side that best proves their case wins.

Period.

Maybe if you hadn't put it in all caps like it meant something more than that, your point would have been better made, eh?

I am sorry that I have to explain to you that when I say proof, in the context of a civil law discussion, I am refering to proof, as defined in the context of civil law.

I will endevour in the future to compensate for the fact that you are apparently incapable of grasping the bloody obvious.

Where the hell is THIS coming from is the question.

If Z is income, Y is cost and X is the value I get, beyond the cost, when I buy something i am left with

Z-Y+X

I said this as Z-X+Y because we swapped the X and Y values somewhere. Either way, doesn't matter.

Were he not to have been arrested he would have been left with income, minus cost of living, plus the intrinsic value of that which he had purchased.

How in ANY way can you disagree with this? In what version of logic does anything other than what i just said make sense?

That is not what you're left with.

(Z - Y) is what I left in income. (X + Y) according to what I quoted by you is the entire value of the game to me after the purchase. So I make my income and buy the game AND I have the game, with its entire value.

Money left = Z - Y
Over value of the game = X + Y
Thus,
(Z-Y) + (X+Y) = My compensation because this is what I would have had, if I was allowed to make my income and buy my video game. Thus, the overall compensation is Z + X. In other words, I will get my salary PLUS the intrinsic value of the game over and beyond the cost of it.

Maybe it will help if we use numbers.

You said X + Y is the overall value of the game.

Let's say:
X = $10 intrinsic value beyond the cost
Y = $60 cost of the game

Thus the game has a $70 value to me.

Let's say I made $100,000 last year.

Now, if we use your equation -
100,000 - 60 + 10 = $999,950

That means that I bought the video game and reduce the overall value to me, which as you stated above would mean I wouldn't buy the video game.

If we use my equation -
100,000 + 10 = $100,010
or 100,000 -60 + 60 + 10 = $100,010

In both cases, in my scenario I increase the value to me by buying the game which is why I do it. In your scenario, I decrease my value to me by buying the game and wouldn't do it. Your formula is flawed.

By the by, believe it or not, I used to be a nationally-ranked mathematician in a past life, after competing for a scholarship on a test designed to test skill in algebra and trigonometry. You can take this an internet claim, but I doubt you're going to find that you come out correct in this debate on the flaws in your formula (which has only little bearing on the general debate, so I'm not claiming my expertise trumps yours).

Arthais101 where did you get the information that the 25% reduction was only on the specific damages part of the settlement?

That I should get the income plus the intrinsic value I was denied. To copy what I wrote above -


Ahh, ok, here's where we are running into the problem.

How would you ever have gotten the intrinsic value you were denied if you never paid for it?

How would you have gotten the intrinsic value of a video game, if you never purchased the game?

You don't get the value without paying the cost. You don't get to enjoy the video game if you never bought the game.

You can't say that the court owes you money for the loss of your ability to play video games without first assuming that you would HAVE BOUGHT THE GAME.

If you want to be compensated for the value of the video game you must be willing to bare the assumption that you would have in fact bought it.

How can you claim that being in jail denied you the joy of the video game you never would have bought? EITHER you would have bought it, and thus gained that joy, so you are owed the joy you would have gotten, minus the cost of the game you bought, or you are owed nothing, since you would not have bought the game.

If the cost of the game is X and the joy is Y, you only get Y, you only EVER get y, when you pay X.

So either you don't buy the game, in which case, you don't get the pleasure of the game, OR you get the pleasure of the game, after purchasing it.

Either Z, or Z-X+Y. Either you didn't buy the game, in which case we don't deduct the cost of the game from your income, but we compensate you for the loss of the game, OR we assume you never bought it, and don't compensate you for the loss, but simply don't reduce the value for the cost.

In other words, had you NEVER been arrested, you would have ended up with:

Z-X+Y

You are saying you are owed Z, and the joy you would have gotten from the game you never got to play, Y.

Z+Y is > than Z-X+Y. Why should you get MORE than you started with?

It has already been pointed out to you that the burden of proof in civil actions is on the person or persons claiming damages.

As in my contract example. Saying, 'we know that specific claims are going to err in some way, somehow so you should give me MORE money than I can prove I am due, just so you don't wrong me again' is ridiculous.

Yes, it is. Guess it's a good thing that isn't my argument, eh?

You paid a certain amount for the paint. You lost the receipt, and can't prove how much...but the court doesn't say, 'fuck off then, no money', they make an estimate based on average market value, and you get it. Maybe you get less, maybe you get more. But on the balance of probabilities, you get about what you should.

Indeed, but that still isn't what we're talking about.

We're talking about the painter going, "Well, actually, since I didn't get to go over there and paint, she could have spent the days I was supposed to be painting at work, and would have made $X. Therefore I actually owe the cost of the paint minus that amount that she might have made if she used that time to go to work."

Then you haven't actually been reading what he's been posting on the subject.

Yes, I have. Every time I point out the flaws, he has a freaking cow and starts going on about how objective it is and how we have to have exact justice (even though said goal is literally impossible).

Stop ignoring this issue, and focusing solely on what you deem to be the drawbacks of specific damages.

The issue is specific damages.

General damages are there to do precisely what you are advocating....speculate in favour of the wronged.

Yes. But that's not what I'm discussing. I'm talking about not speculating in favor of the person who did the wrong. See the difference?

Taken together, the various compensation schemes pretty much cover all the angles. Taken apart, no single scheme fully works.

So stop taking them apart...because that's not what is happening here.

We are talking specifically about specific damages (wow, that's an ugly sentence). I stated that I don't think I agree with how specific damages are calculated, and that is what I have been discussing.

And, especially in this country, where lawmakers are arguing in favor of arbitrary caps on damages - especially general damages - in personal injury and malpractice lawsuits, the importance of specific damages gets even more inflated.


Of which there is a burden of proof. That's the whole damned point. You seem to be under the impression one says "I am harmed, now figure out what he owes me!"

No, I'm not. And I haven't argued that there shouldn't be a burden of proof, either.

No, not at all. This is stupid. There is no "sentencing phase" in civil law, the comparison doesn't work.

Hence the reason I put it in quotes.

A sentencing phase means that guilt has been determined and then the judge decides an appropriate penalty. The prosecution doesn't try to argue WHY there should be a certain penalty, they only argue THAT a crime has been committed.

???? I'm fairly certain that the prosecution is involved in arguing for specific sentences in many criminal cases. Witnesses are even brought specifically for that reason.

In civil law you don't just argue that you have been harmed. You must also plead, and prove, your damages.

That's the entire point. If you wish to receive damages, you have to ask for the damages you think you should receive, then prove them. The amount of damages in question is a crucial part of the claim. It's not like someone just pulls a number out of a hat. The plaintiffs have to prove that they are owed this money.

Indeed. And there will always be a bit of speculation involved in this.

But it's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the bit where the defense begins to speculate on why they don't actually owe the demonstrated amount because of what the plaintiff might possibly have spent some of that money on - something which is pure speculation.

I am sorry that I have to explain to you that when I say proof, in the context of a civil law discussion, I am refering to proof, as defined in the context of civil law.

I will endevour in the future to compensate for the fact that you are apparently incapable of grasping the bloody obvious.

You didn't say proof. If you had, I would have been fine.

Instead, you starting talking about how you have to PROVE things, as if PROVE is such a big, important word and you can do so well that it has to be in caps to encompass all of it. Generally, when people start using it that way, they mean much more than, "within a reasonable doubt."

Of course, I personally think it would be rather difficult to prove, even within a reasonable doubt, how much a specific person would have spent on room and board over a 10-year period. It would also be rather difficult to prove, even within a reasonable doubt, how much a specific person would have received in wages - although that calculation is probably more likely to be low than to be high.

The point is that you are going to have error. There's no way around it. You're either going to pay the person less money than they actually would have had or you're going to pay them more than they actually would have had. There's no way around it. You can draw nice little figures and assume that the person wouldn't have received a raise and that they would have lived in exactly the same apartment and they would have driven exactly the same number of miles or whatever, but it's never going to be truly accurate.

I'm not saying that the person who is harmed should be able to speculate wildly. I'm saying that the person who caused the harm should not be allowed to speculate. To take your example and make it relevant, let's say that the painter wanted to speculate that he actually saved you money by not coming to paint, because you didn't have to wait at the house for him and thus got more done that day. He then puts an amount on this and argues that he owes you less because breaking the contract actually saved you some money. THAT is the kind of speculation I'm having a problem with - speculation on the part of the person at fault who then has to pay less than what the harmed has demonstrated they lost.

False example. The state is not speculating wildly. It is a FACT that living expenses would have been incurred by these men. Wild speculation did not enter into it...no expenses were deducted for 'luxuries', such as gambling, prostitutes, drugs, or expensive caviar.

And absolutely, when someone makes a claim against you as to what you owe them, you have the right to refute that claim with proof.

You could claim that you are owed $5000 (for the increase of price you could sell your house for if painted) minus the $2000 (you would have paid to have it painted). And I could counter-claim that in today's housing market, no amount of painting would have gotten your house sold and therefore you are owed squat. Depending on the evidence available, the court will make the ruling as to which scenario is more likely on a balance of probabilities.

False example. The state is not speculating wildly.

No, but it is basing these numbers on pure speculation.

It is a FACT that living expenses would have been incurred by these men.

Assuming they didn't live on the streets or lounging around on a friend's couch, absolutely. But how do we figure out what the cost of living for those three men in particular would have been? Especially when we're talking about over a period of 10 years? In the end, it's nothing but pure speculation. It may not be wild speculation, but it is pure speculation, nonetheless.

And absolutely, when someone makes a claim against you as to what you owe them, you have the right to refute that claim with proof.

You owe them what they lost. As far as I'm concerned, what they might have used that money for is largely irrelevant. If you hit my car and I lose $1000 in repairs, you owe me $1000 in damages that you caused. It doesn't matter if my rental car had better gas mileage than my old one or if I rode the bus to work. You caused $1000 in damages - you owe me $1000.

Now, if you can show that there was already $500 worth of damage to the car before you ever hit it, and the repair bill included that, then you could argue that you only owe me $500. But you can't argue that you actually only owe me $750, because I rode the bus to work and didn't get a speeding ticket (the latter included as an obvious exaggeration, before you jump all over it). See the difference?

You could claim that you are owed $5000 (for the increase of price you could sell your house for if painted) minus the $2000 (you would have paid to have it painted). And I could counter-claim that in today's housing market, no amount of painting would have gotten your house sold and therefore you are owed squat. Depending on the evidence available, the court will make the ruling as to which scenario is more likely on a balance of probabilities.

Indeed, but you still aren't using an example that works for what I'm arguing. I'm talking about the painter arguing that you are owed squat, even though you bought the paint, because you might have eaten in on the days he was going to paint, whereas you might have eaten out instead. Because you saved money on food that you wouldn't have saved if there had been paint fumes, he might argue, he shouldn't have to pay for the damages he obviously caused you.

Arthais101 where did you get the information that the 25% reduction was only on the specific damages part of the settlement?

Hopeful optimism?

I assume that's the way because that's the only way that would ACTUALLY make sense.

That's my assumption here, and I admit it's my assumption, I only have it because I can't imagine it being another way.

If I'm wrong in that, then this is an outrage, and is patently unacceptable. My lack of indignation is predicated on me being right about that.

If I am wrong about that, then I fully admit, it's seriously fucked up.

Yes, it is. Guess it's a good thing that isn't my argument, eh? Funny, because that's exactly how your argument is coming across, 'eh?

You flat out said, 'err on the side of the wronged'.

And since we know for a fact that we won't be exact (as we can't), I think it is better to go ahead and err on the side of the person seeking damages.

They mirror reality based on somewhat arbitrarily chosen values and will always be off. I simply think that the error should always be on the side of the person who has been harmed. So we ignore the amounts that they might have spent. We can't know what they were.

No, I'm not. All I'm doing is erring on the side of the harmed, rather than the person who harmed them.
When counter-evidence is provided to show that your claim is higher than it should be, the court does not err in taking that into account. You want us to ignore the evidence of the wrong-doer because they committed the wrong.

That is not justice, any way you look at it.


The point is that you are going to have error. There's no way around it. You're either going to pay the person less money than they actually would have had or you're going to pay them more than they actually would have had. There's no way around it. You can draw nice little figures and assume that the person wouldn't have received a raise and that they would have lived in exactly the same apartment and they would have driven exactly the same number of miles or whatever, but it's never going to be truly accurate.

No shit. What's your point? Looking at what you've said before, though you don't restate it here, your solution is to 'err on the side of the wronged'.

But the system works like this. You make a claim. You offer proof. The other side gets to refute your claim. They offer proof. And the court determines who has made the best case, on the balance of probabilities. There are no claims to absolute accuracy for you to refute.

Hopeful optimism?

I assume that's the way because that's the only way that would ACTUALLY make sense.

That's my assumption here, and I admit it's my assumption, I only have it because I can't imagine it being another way.

If I'm wrong in that, then this is an outrage, and is patently unacceptable. My lack of indignation is predicated on me being right about that.

If I am wrong about that, then I fully admit, it's seriously fucked up.

The reason I asked is because the BBC article in the OP gives the impression that it is being taken from the whole settlement and a radio interview I listened to this morning with the guy from Wales who did 11 years seems to confirm that. He said that it was being deducted from the whole amount and he wasn't best pleased.

Ahh, ok, here's where we are running into the problem.

How would you ever have gotten the intrinsic value you were denied if you never paid for it?

How would you have gotten the intrinsic value of a video game, if you never purchased the game?

You don't get the value without paying the cost. You don't get to enjoy the video game if you never bought the game.

You can't say that the court owes you money for the loss of your ability to play video games without first assuming that you would HAVE BOUGHT THE GAME.

If you want to be compensated for the value of the video game you must be willing to bare the assumption that you would have in fact bought it.

How can you claim that being in jail denied you the joy of the video game you never would have bought? EITHER you would have bought it, and thus gained that joy, so you are owed the joy you would have gotten, minus the cost of the game you bought, or you are owed nothing, since you would not have bought the game.

If the cost of the game is X and the joy is Y, you only get Y, you only EVER get y, when you pay X.

So either you don't buy the game, in which case, you don't get the pleasure of the game, OR you get the pleasure of the game, after purchasing it.

Either Z, or Z-X+Y. Either you didn't buy the game, in which case we don't deduct the cost of the game from your income, but we compensate you for the loss of the game, OR we assume you never bought it, and don't compensate you for the loss, but simply don't reduce the value for the cost.

In other words, had you NEVER been arrested, you would have ended up with:

Z-X+Y

You are saying you are owed Z, and the joy you would have gotten from the game you never got to play, Y.

Z+Y is > than Z-X+Y. Why should you get MORE than you started with?


See, there is the flaw in the logic. I'll give you an example.

I go into a store to buy beer but it's after 2 AM so it's not being sold. I don't have to be compensated because they can't legally provide the beer to me. There is no fault.

And we're even I didn't get the service of value Y and they didn't get the compensation Y. Y - Y = 0.

However, when I'm wronged, if there is fault, then I'm compensated for the extended value as well, which is the Y + X. Now there is no need to compensate me for Y since I never spent Y. Your logic forces me to first spend it and then have my money returned to me (logically, not physically). However, if you simply didn't force me to spend the money, you wouldn't have to return.

However, your formula is still flawed. Even if we accept that money must be spent and then returned, your forumal leaves me with less than what I started with and disincentivises the purchase. You placed in one of your arguments, that I purchase an item because it has more value than the cost to me. That means that my value (as far as I'm concerned) should increase after purchase, not decrease.

The reason I asked is because the BBC article in the OP gives the impression that it is being taken from the whole settlement and a radio interview I listened to this morning with the guy from Wales who did 11 years seems to confirm that. He said that it was being deducted from the whole amount and he wasn't best pleased.

No offence, but the media reports are not likely to include the specifics of the damages awarded, broken down by category.

And it looks like the case hasn't been published yet, to check up on that.

Jeebus, £15k for board and lodging? That's some swanky prison. I probably only pay about £5k max with everything said and done.

No offence, but the media reports are not likely to include the specifics of the damages awarded, broken down by category.

And it looks like the case hasn't been published yet, to check up on that.

Judges ruled by a four to one majority that they must pay back 25% of their compensation.

If it was 25% of a portion of their settlement then the percentage in the article should reflect this, i.e. 25% of the specific damages when the specific damages make up 50% of the overall payout would have made that sentence read "Judges ruled by a four to one majority that they must pay back 12.5% of their compensation."

Like I said the article in conjunction with the interview I heard this morning makes me think it's 25% of the full amount. I'm still waiting for the case report to come out but at the moment I'm not best pleased with the action of the government on this one.

Yes, I have. Every time I point out the flaws, he has a freaking cow and starts going on about how objective it is and how we have to have exact justice (even though said goal is literally impossible).

We have to WORK towards exact justice. You don't advocate that. You advocate giving the injured, on average, a little extra. This is not exact justice.

The goal is to move to as exact justice as we can. Not intentionally move away from it.


And, especially in this country, where lawmakers are arguing in favor of arbitrary caps on damages - especially general damages - in personal injury and malpractice lawsuits, the importance of specific damages gets even more inflated.

That, I fear, is a whole other animal.

???? I'm fairly certain that the prosecution is involved in arguing for specific sentences in many criminal cases. Witnesses are even brought specifically for that reason.

No, they are not. They may argue in favor of the judge granting a sentence. The judge, however, need not listen to them in the slightest. The judge may issue any sentance he or she feels just, within the guidelines for that crime.

Prosecution arguing for a sentence is not attempting to prove a sentence is just or necessary. It is merely advisory.


But it's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the bit where the defense begins to speculate on why they don't actually owe the demonstrated amount because of what the plaintiff might possibly have spent some of that money on - something which is pure speculation.

Yes, but the thing is, they don't get to actually reduce those damages UNLESS they are...wait for it, able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this money would have been spent.

Why do you think simple wild speculation is adequate? The defense can speculate about whatever the holy hell they want to. IF they are able to prove, more likely than not, that this is the case, THEN they can reduce it.

But pure speculation gets you nowhere, why the hell do you think it does? What gives you the impression that the defense can go "uhhhh, well she might have won the lottery, so we should reduce that".

That's, again, stupid. If the defense wishes to lower the damages, THEY must prove, more likely than not, that this lowering is just. Where do you get the impression that wild speculation does it?



You didn't say proof. If you had, I would have been fine.

Instead, you starting talking about how you have to PROVE things, as if PROVE is such a big, important word and you can do so well that it has to be in caps to encompass all of it.

Prove means "to meet the burden of proof". So when I say someone has to prove something, it means they need to meet the burden of proof.

Caps = emphasis, nothing more.


Generally, when people start using it that way, they mean much more than, "within a reasonable doubt."

Why the hell would I use a burden of proof in criminal law when we're talking about civil law?


Of course, I personally think it would be rather difficult to prove, even within a reasonable doubt, how much a specific person would have spent on room and board over a 10-year period. It would also be rather difficult to prove, even within a reasonable doubt, how much a specific person would have received in wages - although that calculation is probably more likely to be low than to be high.

You'd be surprised. Insurance companies have numerous people who do nothing else but.

The point is that you are going to have error. There's no way around it. You're either going to pay the person less money than they actually would have had or you're going to pay them more than they actually would have had. There's no way around it. You can draw nice little figures and assume that the person wouldn't have received a raise and that they would have lived in exactly the same apartment and they would have driven exactly the same number of miles or whatever, but it's never going to be truly accurate.

And it is the job of the person either a) claiming damages or b) claiming mitigation to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

if they can't it doesn't count. THat's the whole point. The court doesn't make this determination by itself. Each side makes their claims, each side tries to prove it. The one that does prove it, wins.

No, but it is basing these numbers on pure speculation.

Where the hell do you get that from?

No, but it is basing these numbers on pure speculation. Bullshit. It is no more 'pure speculation' than estimating what these men would have earned over those years. And yet you seem fine with that sort of speculation.

You don't get to have your cake, and eat it too. Not unless you can prove on the balance of probabilities that you should be able to.


You owe them what they lost. Pure speculation. Since in your theory of law, we can't prove what this would be, it would be unjust to grant them anything.

Or conversely, we should ONLY take the speculation of the person seeking damages into account.

Both outcomes are royally fucking stupid. And don't say, 'that's not what I'm arguing'. Because it is precisely what you are arguing when you attempt to shift the burden of proof in the ways you have suggested.

It is no more difficult to put a dollar value on potential earnings, than it is to put a dollar value on potential expenses. As Arthais pointed out...these sorts of calculations are done ALL THE TIME.

If it was 25% of a portion of their settlement then the percentage in the article should reflect this, i.e. 25% of the specific damages when the specific damages make up 50% of the overall payout would have made that sentence read "Judges ruled by a four to one majority that they must pay back 12.5% of their compensation."

Like I said the article in conjunction with the interview I heard this morning makes me think it's 25% of the full amount. I'm still waiting for the case report to come out but at the moment I'm not best pleased with the action of the government on this one.
I'll await the report...but I do not share your faith in the accuracy of the press in terms of disseminating accurate legal realities to the masses. Not when shocking headlines make for much better reading. I've seen too many cases reported by the press in a manner wholly inconsistent with the actual rulings to accept this.

Funny, because that's exactly how your argument is coming across, 'eh?

You flat out said, 'err on the side of the wronged'.

And I flat out made it clear that this was in a system that will already err no matter what we do. I didn't say anything about a lack of proof being required on the part of the plaintiff.

This is why context is your friend. It isn't like I put that out there and then left it without explanation. We're talking about a system here which attempts to figure out how much money a person would have had if a particular harm had not been inflicted upon them. We know for a fact that any calculation we do is going to be inaccurate - we will either err on the side of the person harmed or on the side of the person who caused the harm. Knowing this, I think the situation in which we err on the side of the harmed is a better one. This doesn't mean that they don't have to back up their claims - as that would just open it up for them to harm the other person. What it means is that the person who caused the harm gets less (or maybe no) room to speculate.

For instance, in the case of the imprisoned men. If we are going to deduct for living expenses at all, the bare minimum should be deducted, because that is all the state can assume they would have spent. Sure, they might have chosen to live in a better apartment with higher utility costs and eaten better food. But all the state can really demonstrate is that, barring extraordinary circumstances, they would have needed to pay for a place to stay, food, and whatever bills come with that place to stay. So, what would it have been if they ate Ramen noodles all the time, lived in a small studio apartment, and used the bare minimum of utilities? That's all I can see them reasonably deducting.

No shit. What's your point? Looking at what you've said before, though you don't restate it here, your solution is to 'err on the side of the wronged'.

But the system works like this. You make a claim. You offer proof. The other side gets to refute your claim. They offer proof. And the court determines who has made the best case, on the balance of probabilities. There are no claims to absolute accuracy for you to refute.

Once again, I'm not talking about the other side refuting your claim. I've got no problem with that. I'm talking about the other side making their own speculative claims about what might have been.

To go back to the car example, if I have a bill for $1000 of damages after you hit my car, you owe me $1000. You can certainly try and refute that. You can claim that there was already damage to the car before you hit it or that I had extra purely aesthetic work done that actually improved the car. In either case, if you demonstrated it to be true, that would drop the amount owed.

It's when you start getting into speculation like, "You paid less for gas in the rental car, so I actually owe you less," or, "You rode the bus, so I actually owe you less," etc. that I have a problem with it. These do not refute the claims of the plaintiff, as there is no argument that $1000 of damage was not done. They are claims made by the defense that the harm somehow helped the plaintiff, and thus the defendant should not pay for the full damages that it has been demonstrated he caused.


Meanwhile, you keep saying the system "works like this." What does "work" mean, in this case?

When counter-evidence is provided to show that your claim is higher than it should be, the court does not err in taking that into account.

That's not what the claims I'm talking about are doing, however. I'm talking about speculation as to what might have been spent, not evidence that the original claim is actually too high. If these men were, for instance, claiming that they would have received wages that generally only go to those with higher education, and they only had secondary education, then the state would certainly wish to present the evidence that they, in fact, would have been receiving lower wages.

That's not what the claims I'm talking about are doing, however. I'm talking about speculation as to what might have been spent, not evidence that the original claim is actually too high. If these men were, for instance, claiming that they would have received wages that generally only go to those with higher education, and they only had secondary education, then the state would certainly wish to present the evidence that they, in fact, would have been receiving lower wages.

Wait. While I agree with you, I should point out that what she is referring to as counter-evidence is what "might" have been spent. That's the point. Just like the plaintiff's evidence is what "might" have been made. I agree that they should err on the side of the plaintiff once fault has been established, but you have to be careful to express exactly what you mean by this.

She is using the term evidence in a legal way while you really aren't. Or at least not responding as if you are using it the same way she is. And vice versa.

And I flat out made it clear that this was in a system that will already err no matter what we do. I didn't say anything about a lack of proof being required on the part of the plaintiff.

*snip*
Once again, I'm not talking about the other side refuting your claim. I've got no problem with that. I'm talking about the other side making their own speculative claims about what might have been. What you seem truly incapable of understanding is that your definitions here are inherently contradictory, and biased in favour of the plaintiff.

You say, no problem, the other side can prove their case.

You then categorise the other side's 'proof' as speculation, and dismiss it. You say you aren't talking about the other side refuting your claim. Yes, yes you are. You've just decided to call it 'making speculations' in opposition to the plaintiff who 'makes a claim'...interestingly enough, both cases are made on speculation.

Fuck your car example, and my paint example, let's stick to what we're discussing here.

It's fairly easy to speculate what these men would have earned had they not been incarcerated. We back up that speculation with some sort of analysis of average wages etc. That's called proof, in support of your claim.

Now, you've admitted the other side gets a chance to refute the claim. They don't need to invalidate the claim, and in fact they are not attempting to. They admit readily, yes, this is what they likely would have earned.

BUT. In the real world, you don't earn money and pay nothing out in living expenses. It just doesn't work that way, speculating in a general manner. Therefore, here are the calculations, the PROOF that they would have likely been paying about this amount in living expenses.

Since the purpose of specific damages in this case is to put the plantiffs back into the position they would have been had the wrong not been done (within the scope of this category of damages alone), these expenses should be subtracted from their earnings. Doing otherwise would put them AHEAD of where they would have been, which is not the purpose of specific damages in this case. Other damages can do that.

So either you accept that in both situations, speculation is a necessary evil, and available to BOTH sides...or you risk invalidating the claim of the plaintiff along with the claim of the defendant.


Meanwhile, you keep saying the system "works like this." What does "work" mean, in this case?
In this case, I am giving you a description, a very basic description, of the actual process.

I'll await the report...but I do not share your faith in the accuracy of the press in terms of disseminating accurate legal realities to the masses. Not when shocking headlines make for much better reading. I've seen too many cases reported by the press in a manner wholly inconsistent with the actual rulings to accept this.

Shocking headlines do make for better reading however most of my belief in it being 25% of the whole amount comes from the phone interview I heard this morning when one of the chaps directly affected said it was 25% of the whole settlement in a live phone interview, now that could have been orchestrated by the BBC but it seems a little tin-foil hattish to me.

We have to WORK towards exact justice. You don't advocate that. You advocate giving the injured, on average, a little extra. This is not exact justice.

If we can't achieve exact justice, is it better to err on the side of the injured or the person who caused the injury?

I'm generally quite the idealist, but I know better than to think we can actually achieve exact justice.

Yes, but the thing is, they don't get to actually reduce those damages UNLESS they are...wait for it, able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this money would have been spent.

The only thing they could possibly prove beyond a reasonable doubt is the lowest possible rent, utilities, and food costs.

Why do you think simple wild speculation is adequate?

I never said it was. Pure speculation and wild speculation are not the same thing.

But pure speculation gets you nowhere, why the hell do you think it does?

This is, by its very nature, pure speculation. They are guessing at what might have happened in the future. They don't have a bill to present or anything like that. It is pure speculation. Now, certain claims would certainly be more reasonable than others, but they will all be speculation.

What gives you the impression that the defense can go "uhhhh, well she might have won the lottery, so we should reduce that".

Nothing. Of course, I haven't claimed anything like that....

You'd be surprised. Insurance companies have numerous people who do nothing else but.

You mean they try to do nothing else but, always skewing the numbers in the best possible way for the insurance company, right?

And it is the job of the person either a) claiming damages or b) claiming mitigation to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Then the state, at best, can claim the absolute minimum living expenses.


Bullshit. It is no more 'pure speculation' than estimating what these men would have earned over those years. And yet you seem fine with that sort of speculation.

There's no other way to pay the men back for lost wages but to speculate, now is there?

Have you even been reading what I've written? I stated that wages were pure speculation as well. And I stated that I think, to a point, the harmed should be allowed speculation while the person who caused the harm should not. This is how that "err on the side of the harmed" you like so much comes in.

You don't get to have your cake, and eat it too. Not unless you can prove on the balance of probabilities that you should be able to.

Do lost wages take into account the fact that you might have gotten a raise? In 10 years, it seems fairly likely, but I doubt you could "prove" it. Do they take into account that a person in a minimum wage job when he went in probably wouldn't be working a minimum wage job 10 years later? I can't actually demonstrate it, but it would seem to me that, especially in long-term cases, these sorts of calculations are most likely always going to underestimate the wages that would have been earned.

That pretty F*ed up right there.

Wait. While I agree with you, I should point out that what she is referring to as counter-evidence is what "might" have been spent. That's the point. Just like the plaintiff's evidence is what "might" have been made. I agree that they should err on the side of the plaintiff once fault has been established, but you have to be careful to express exactly what you mean by this.

She is using the term evidence in a legal way while you really aren't. Or at least not responding as if you are using it the same way she is. And vice versa.

I don't see how a claim about something wholly different could be seen as counter-evidence. If the defendant is talking about what might have been spent, they aren't doing anything to counter the plaintiff's claims about how much money they lost or didn't receive. They are trying to make an separate claim about how much that money, if they hadn't lost it or had received it, might have been used.

Even in the legal system, calling that counter-evidence would be a pretty screwed up use of the English language.


What you seem truly incapable of understanding is that your definitions here are inherently contradictory, and biased in favour of the plaintiff.

Um....no. In fact I have made it exceedingly clear that, once harm has been established, there would be a bit of a bias in favor of the plaintiff - to ensure that the plaintiff actually doesn't get screwed out of more money. That's really been my whole point, really. It might end up with them having more than they would have had otherwise, it might not. But the process, no matter what we do, is either going to give them more or less. I'd rather see more.

Here in the US, if you're wrongly convicted and spend that much time in prison, the state usually quietly settles with you - you get a check for a large sum of money for your trouble, and a promise not to sue the shit out of them.

For once the UK NSers cannot complain about how the US is worse.


:eek: It must be the APOCALYPSE! :eek: *goes outside to enjoy the last few 80 degree days*

Does anyone else think "WTF?!!?"

Yes. Yes I do

There's no other way to pay the men back for lost wages but to speculate, now is there? Right. Just like there is no way to determine what they would have spent out of those speculated lost wages without speculation. You simply believe that only one speculation should count. The plaintiffs. Once again, you have shifted the burden of proof.

So when I claim that you are causing me emotional distress, and due to this, I've suffered 'x' amount of hours of lost productivity, and speculate that those hours are probably worth about 'y' amount....YOU don't get to counter-claim that I would have been wasting time on NSG anyway. No. That would be SPECULATION on your point, as and the defendant, you simply don't get that right.:rolleyes:

]Have you even been reading what I've written? Yes, and slogging through the same contradictions again, and again, and again, is beyond boring.

I stated that wages were pure speculation as well. And I stated that I think, to a point, the harmed should be allowed speculation while the person who caused the harm should not. This is how that "err on the side of the harmed" you like so much comes in. Exactly. So I have stated your position correctly. You want to skew things in favour of the plaintiff, because the system is incapable of getting it exactly right. No need to restate that again...I got it the first time you said it.


Do lost wages take into account the fact that you might have gotten a raise? In 10 years, it seems fairly likely? Do they take into account that a person in a minimum wage job when he went in probably wouldn't be working a minimum wage job 10 years later? I can't actually demonstrate it, but it would seem to me that, especially in long-term cases, these sorts of calculations are most likely always going to underestimate the wages that would have been earned.

If the awards were based wholly on what income they might have earned, I would agree that the outcome would not even approach justice.

But the awards are NOT wholly based on this. So I'm not particularily concerned with the narrowness of this category, when general damages allow you to claim a hell of a lot more than lost wages. Wow! You're right! Context IS your friend.

You might try it too.

What? That's ridiculous. Isn't it enough that the state took 18 years of their life from them? This isn't some sort of absurd joke?

We have to WORK towards exact justice. You don't advocate that. You advocate giving the injured, on average, a little extra. This is not exact justice.

The goal is to move to as exact justice as we can. Not intentionally move away from it.

See, and here is where we could with relative ease erase this as an issue. In the example that you provide, but eliminating the process of deducting a cost and then reimbursing it in cases where we didn't receive the benefit of said cost (like with the video game) we could simply ignore the cost altogether and simply speculate as to the intrinsic value above the cost. This solves the issue of 'exact' justice while no making victims feel additionally victimized by wild speculation on the part of the courts.

Again, Z - Y + Y + X, lets us drop Y and, thus, not have to argue about whether or not we would have spent the amount they guessed at for Y. However, if Y was not received and never given back in some form or another that's a larger problem. It's easier to not worry about Y or reimbursing Y and moving on to the lost wages and the lost intrinsic values of your life. This focuses on compensating the victim and gives no reason for anyone to feel as if the defendant was compensated for acts they forced upon the victim.

Here it's quite clear who the victim is and it's quite clear how and for what they should be compensated. If it's convoluted and misunderstood in such a clear cut case of wrong, why would believe that justice is ever served? That's the very problem with a system that doesn't address these issues.

Meanwile, you suggested we ignore appearances, but if we are willing to sacrifice any concern for the re-injuring of the victim by making them feel like they are on trial, or for the re-injuring of the victim by perception, then why are we so careful in criminal cases to not try victims. Obviously, if we ignore the harm such a thing does to the victim AND their reputation, it would make sense that a vigilant defense would be permitted to do so. You didn't say that justice must be seperated entirely from concern for perception, did you?

EDIT: Sorry. I was rushing. Pretend I said defendant instead of plaintiff.

Right. Just like there is no way to determine what they would have spent out of those speculated lost wages without speculation.

But what might have been spent is irrelevant to how much was actually lost in wages. Would the amount they would have spent have gone to the defendant (the state, in this case)?

You simply believe that only one speculation should count. The plaintiffs. Once again, you have shifted the burden of proof.

Shifted the burden of proof? How so? The plaintiff has to provide reasonable proof that they would have earned those wages. The defendant can counter those claims by arguing that they would, in fact, have received less in wages.

What I am doing is removing some of the speculation as to how that money might or might not have been spent.

So when I claim that you are causing me emotional distress, and due to this, I've suffered 'x' amount of hours of lost productivity, and speculate that those hours are probably worth about 'y' amount....YOU don't get to counter-claim that I would have been wasting time on NSG anyway. No. That would be SPECULATION on your point, as and the defendant, you simply don't get that right.:rolleyes:

No, once again, when we are talking about refuting a specific claim you have made, then I absolutely would get to refute it. If I can show that you waste a lot of time on the internet, then that would certainly cut down on any lost productivity I would have to pay for.

But, if I instead made a separate claim about how you would have spent the money you might have gotten from your increased productivity, it does nothing to refute your claim that you would have gotten that money.

If the awards were based wholly on what income they might have earned, I would agree that the outcome would not even approach justice.

But the awards are NOT wholly based on this. So I'm not particularily concerned with the narrowness of this category, when general damages allow you to claim a hell of a lot more than lost wages. Wow! You're right! Context IS your friend.

You might try it too.

The context here is discussing specific damages, not general ones.

And given the current push in my country to place arbitrary limits on general damages (and even on specific damages, sometimes), both numbers seem pretty damn important.

I don't see how a claim about something wholly different could be seen as counter-evidence. If the defendant is talking about what might have been spent, they aren't doing anything to counter the plaintiff's claims about how much money they lost or didn't receive. They are trying to make an separate claim about how much that money, if they hadn't lost it or had received it, might have been used.

Even in the legal system, calling that counter-evidence would be a pretty screwed up use of the English language. Thank you for once again highlighting your complete ignorance of the legal system.


What you seem truly incapable of understanding is that your definitions here are inherently contradictory, and biased in favour of the plaintiff.
Um....no. In fact I have made it exceedingly clear that, once harm has been established, there would be a bit of a bias in favor of the plaintiff - to ensure that the plaintiff actually doesn't get screwed out of more money.

I accused you of wanting bias. You confirm it. You have made this exceedingly clear, yes. You justify it with 'so he doesn't get screwed', but bias in favour of the plaintiff is what it is. Adding, 'um no' into your confirmation of my restatement of your position doesn't negate it, especially when your restatement parallels my own.


That's really been my whole point, really. It might end up with them having more than they would have had otherwise, it might not. But the process, no matter what we do, is either going to give them more or less. I'd rather see more.
Which is exactly the position I've been saying you have. And you keep denying it, because it rightfully looks like a stupid position. You have shifted the burden of proof by making it impossible for anyone but the plaintiff to 'speculate'...all in the name of your notion of justice.

Thank you for once again highlighting your complete ignorance of the legal system.

So, the legal system does use terms in completely idiotic ways? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.....


I accused you of wanting bias. You confirm it. You have made this exceedingly clear, yes. You justify it with 'so he doesn't get screwed', but bias in favour of the plaintiff is what it is. Adding, 'um no' into your confirmation of my restatement of your position doesn't negate it, especially when your restatement parallels my own.

The "Um, no" referred to your accusation that I was "failing to understand" pretty much precisely what I've been saying from the beginning.

Which is exactly the position I've been saying you have.[

No, it isn't. You and Arthias have both been saying that I am arguing for wild speculation and for a lack of proof on the part of the plaintiff. Those are the claims I have countered, because I never argued for any such thing. I never claimed that there wouldn't be a bit of a bias in favor of the plaintiff in calculating damages.

And you keep denying it, because it rightfully looks like a stupid position.

Why is it stupid to try and ensure justice for the person who is actually harmed in a system with inherent errors?

You have shifted the burden of proof by making it impossible for anyone but the plaintiff to 'speculate'...all in the name of your notion of justice.

The defendant can speculate - about the plaintiff's claims. If the plaintiff speculates that he would have made $100,000 per year, the defendant can speculate that it actually would have been more like $50,000. Legal wrangling will occur and evidence will be presented on both sides and the judge or jury will decide which claim holds more water - or might even find for something in between.

The speculation I have a problem with on the part of the defendant is what that money might have been spent on, which says nothing to the actual claims of harm being made.

I've actually softened that a bit, to say that I could see where they might deduct for the absolute minimum in living expenses, although it still irks me, as those living expenses wouldn't have been paid to them.

I don't see how a claim about something wholly different could be seen as counter-evidence. If the defendant is talking about what might have been spent, they aren't doing anything to counter the plaintiff's claims about how much money they lost or didn't receive. They are trying to make an separate claim about how much that money, if they hadn't lost it or had received it, might have been used.

Even in the legal system, calling that counter-evidence would be a pretty screwed up use of the English language.

Screwed up use of the language is a tenet of the legal system. I was going to say I was joking, but thinking about it, all evidence supports that claim. A lot of words mean either wholly or slightly different inside a courtroom. It's important to not this.

However, she's not talking about something wholly different. It's very similar. All of these are evidence that is weighed to determine if damage exists and if so what amount.

You are trying to only talk about what amount once that first question is answered, but for civil suits, they are deciding them together for the most part.

Maybe not in this case where damage is obvious, but in most cases until they look at both sides' losses and gains they really can't come up with damage or the amount. So they have to be treated similarly.

That said, I think it's clear that there is some benefit to recognizing that we can drop some analysis that would leave victims, when there are victims as in this case, with a better feeling of justice. As I showed in my mathematical equiation, justice can be acheived by taking out expenses and then giving them back, it's easier to just see that no expense was incurred, nor was the service received and just award the intrinsic value that was sought in receiving that service that they were unjustly denied (referred to as X by A101). This solves the problem you're discussing here without ignoring evidence. It's just not analyzing things that you know are going to drop out anyway. And in the case of wrongful incarceration, if cost of living doesn't drop out, it's not justice.

That is not what you're left with.

(Z - Y) is what I left in income. (X + Y) according to what I quoted by you is the entire value of the game to me after the purchase. So I make my income and buy the game AND I have the game, with its entire value.

Money left = Z - Y
Over value of the game = X + Y
Thus,
(Z-Y) + (X+Y) = My compensation because this is what I would have had, if I was allowed to make my income and buy my video game. Thus, the overall compensation is Z + X. In other words, I will get my salary PLUS the intrinsic value of the game over and beyond the cost of it.

Maybe it will help if we use numbers.

You said X + Y is the overall value of the game.

Let's say:
X = $10 intrinsic value beyond the cost
Y = $60 cost of the game

Thus the game has a $70 value to me.

Let's say I made $100,000 last year.

Now, if we use your equation -
100,000 - 60 + 10 = $999,950

That means that I bought the video game and reduce the overall value to me, which as you stated above would mean I wouldn't buy the video game.

If we use my equation -
100,000 + 10 = $100,010
or 100,000 -60 + 60 + 10 = $100,010

In both cases, in my scenario I increase the value to me by buying the game which is why I do it. In your scenario, I decrease my value to me by buying the game and wouldn't do it. Your formula is flawed.

By the by, believe it or not, I used to be a nationally-ranked mathematician in a past life, after competing for a scholarship on a test designed to test skill in algebra and trigonometry. You can take this an internet claim, but I doubt you're going to find that you come out correct in this debate on the flaws in your formula (which has only little bearing on the general debate, so I'm not claiming my expertise trumps yours).

Are you going to address this A101? You brought it up and the flaw in your seems pretty obvious to me.

If Z is income, Y is cost and X is the value I get, beyond the cost, when I buy something i am left with

Z-Y+X

You're Z- X + Y assumes that Y compensates me for the cost of X, but when you actually looked at the compensation from the item you said -

So the sum total value of the game, to you, is X + Y.

See that. So according to you I am never given the sum total of the value of the game to me. Because it doesn't appear in your equation. If justice were served I would have what is left of my income and the sum total value of the game or whatever other service I might purchase or I would have my total income and whatever intrinsic value I would have gained given the chance.

In your equation instead pay for the game and only gain back the value above the cost, which is why your equation doesn't represent justice. Incidentally, it pretty clearly represents the perception of how these men were treated and is exactly why people are upset.

They already got their settlement.

Part of that, however, 25% to be exact, is going to go to pay for the food that they received.

Though I haven't done the maths, they will be paying some of their compensation back for the food that they ate.

Jocobia,

See that. So according to you I am never given the sum total of the value of the game to me. Because it doesn't appear in your equation. If justice were served I would have what is left of my income and the sum total value of the game or whatever other service I might purchase or I would have my total income and whatever intrinsic value I would have gained given the chance.

In your equation instead pay for the game and only gain back the value above the cost, which is why your equation doesn't represent justice. Incidentally, it pretty clearly represents the perception of how these men were treated and is exactly why people are upset.

I understand our confusion, and admit, there was a mathematical error on my part, and it was entirely my own fault. The reason we are going around is because I made a mistatement and compounded my mistatement by repeating it. You are correct, what I have given as examples does not jive with the position I was trying to articulate. Entirely my fault.

Let's drop the previous examples, and redo it, from here. Let us define some terms, with new variables.

I = income, that which you make

P = price of an item that you purchase, rent, game, whatever

V = the value that item has for you. By definition V is always = or greater than P because if not...you wouldn't have bought it.

A = the additional value beyond P for an item. That is to say, what an item is worth to you above and beyond its price. By definition then, V = P + A and A is always = or > 0 for the same reasons above. Because the courts can never give you A, it can never give you that emotional joy back, it has to give you monitary compensation roughly equal to A, we refer to this as A(m). Likewise V(m) is P + A(m)

C = compensation, the total value of compensation one should gain.

S = specific compensation

G = general compensation

Thus understood that C = S + G (whether we should divide that or not is the next question, I'll get there, for now, just defining terms).

Now again, let us take your game for example. The game has a price, P. The game has a value to you, V. This value is the price of the game, P, and the additional value to you beyond the price, A.

When you buy a game, with your income (I) you are left, in PURE monitary amounts, with I - P. Income - price.

However again, when we buy something we gain something from that. That thing you bought has value to you (V). So you pay your price (P) but gain the value (V)

So in fact you are left with:

I - P + V. Income, minus price, plus value.

However V = P + A. So I - P + V can be written as

I - P + P + A

which = I + A

So what you are left with can be expressed as:

I - P + V

OR

I + A

Either expression is correct, right? Please stop here, and let me know. I want to be absolutly clear I am actually right in my explanation, and am understood. So please, inform me if I am wrong, or if I'm unclear

So, because this person was not in jail, he was never able to aquire his own place of living, his own lifestyle. The basic, necessary price of that lifestyle, we can again refer to as P. The total value he would have gained for that lifestyle is V. And once again V is AT LEAST = P

So he must be compensated, and since what he WOULD HAVE HAD is:

I - P + V His compensation (C) must therefore be:

C = I - P + V(m) (remember V(m) is the price P plus the monetary equivalant of the additional value A, or, as described in monetary terms, A(m)

OR

C = I + A(m)

Either one is exactly the same right? We agree either one, in the end, is fair. Either one is just, they are, in the end, the exact same thing. C can be written as I - P + V (m) OR I + A(m). It's exactly the same, and both are just. Can we agree to this?

However I think we ALSO agree that it can NOT be:

C = I + V(m)

This is not fair compensation. It is, to coin the legal phrase, unjust enrichment. if we give him I + V(m), this is double dipping, we've effectivly given him back the value of P twice. C = I + V(m) is unjust enrichment on his behalf.

Therefore I say, "FINE! Adjust income for the cost of living, take it away. They will (or they SHOULD) get it back again when they are given V, since V includes that price ANYWAY. And, in this instance, it's possible that the court erred and DID grant them the value (V(m)) WITHOUT subtracting the price (P)."

This is justice basically. The prisons should pay them what they are owed. But not more than they are owed. To have the prisons pay more than the former prisoners are owed is to grant an injustice to the prison.

To say otherwise, to say "yes, they were given more than they should, but it shouldn't be reduced because they were harmed, and why should we care if the prisons have to pay more than they should?" is to render that value of C into a punitive damage. it is to say they're paying more than they should, but that's ok because they just did a bad thing.

Can we agree that IF this is the case, that if the lower court did in fact grant damages based on lost income and this value (V(m)) without subtracting P, then this would give them more than they should have gotten?

Is this a fair statement that we can agree on? Not saying they DID, but that IF they did, it should be reduced, because if that is the case, they're getting more than they should? And that IF they are getting more than they should, this is in effect rendering a punitive damage on to the prison, which you yourself said you don't agree with?

Can we agree here?

Hopefully so, moving on.

Now, but remember, compensation is both specific, and general

C = S + G

Specific damages are those cold hard monitary things, and general are the more fuzzy emotional distress, pain and suffering, all that.

So in my formation, I - P is the specific damages. Income minus the price. Pure, monitary calculation, no room for discussion of emotional issues what so ever.

V(m) is the general compensation. The value lost by being denied this lifestyle. That which he has lost by not being free. Here is where we talk about his emotional loss. V includes that emotional value, as discussed.

So

C = S + G
S = I - P
G = V(m)

Thus

C = (I - P) + V(m)


The problem thus is, remember, seperate damages. I - P is specific, V(m) is general.

To write it as C = I + A(m) is to blend them, it's to turn two entirely seperate catagories of damages into one single damages calculation. This, as I say, is the problem, we're merging two seperate things into one.

Now, here's where you say "why the hell are we doing it this way? What is the point of two seperate things? Why are we calculating two entirely seperate things, then writing the calculation as I - P + V(m) and going through all that when we can simply make it I + A(m)?"

In other words, why the hell DONT we merge two seperate things into one?

I'm going to stop here, and let you read this, there is a justification for this, there IS a reason we keep them seperate, but before I go into that, I just want to make sure that I'm understood, and I haven't managed to bugger it all up again.

So respond, don't give me your argument, just yet, just let me know if I'm fairly and adequatly explaining your position.

I admit the error was mine, I want to make sure that we can understand each other from now on. Is what I have said so far a fair and accurate portrayal of the general understanding?

Additionally, I wasn't ignoring the statement, I had left work and was traveling home.

I understand our confusion, and admit, there was a mathematical error on my part, and it was entirely my own fault. The reason we are going around is because I made a mistatement and compounded my mistatement by repeating it. You are correct, what I have given as examples does not jive with the position I was trying to articulate. Entirely my fault.

Fair enough. I told you, you might get me on law, but on math, well, good luck with that. Overall it doesn't change your argument particularly, which is why I pointed that out. I'm going to break up the rest so you can be sure I'm following along, and if you disagree with some response I have you can identify where we went wrong (I always assume that miscommunication is a dance where both partners are working together well). Anywho, let's get started...



Let's drop the previous examples, and redo it, from here. Let us define some terms, with new variables.

I = income, that which you make

P = price of an item that you purchase, rent, game, whatever

V = the value that item has for you. By definition V is always = or greater than P because if not...you wouldn't have bought it.

A = the additional value beyond P for an item. That is to say, what an item is worth to you above and beyond its price. By definition then, V = P + A and A is always = or > 0 for the same reasons above. Because the courts can never give you A, it can never give you that emotional joy back, it has to give you monitary compensation roughly equal to A, we refer to this as A(m). Likewise V(m) is P + A(m)

So far, I'm with you and I totally agree. I'll restate some things just to be sure we're on the same page.

You've assigned A to the X + Y value we talked about which is now A(m) + P, respectively. I know you want to drop the previous examples, I'm just trying to give as much to work with as possible if end up moving apart again.

So if we were to look what I expect to be the compensation based on what I was saying before it would be I - P + V(m) or I - P + A(m) + P. You may or may not agree with this, but I'm just showing you where I'm at, at this point in the post.



C = compensation, the total value of compensation one should gain.

S = specific compensation

G = general compensation

Thus understood that C = S + G (whether we should divide that or not is the next question, I'll get there, for now, just defining terms).

Agreed. You and I both know it's more complicated than that, but this definitely covers what we're looking at for this thread.



Now again, let us take your game for example. The game has a price, P. The game has a value to you, V. This value is the price of the game, P, and the additional value to you beyond the price, A.

Again, V(m) = P + A(m) Agreed.



When you buy a game, with your income (I) you are left, in PURE monitary amounts, with I - P. Income - price.[/QUOTE]

Again. If you look above. We agree. This matches to my Z-Y statements. However, I'll say these letters should be easier to keep straight.


However again, when we buy something we gain something from that. That thing you bought has value to you (V). So you pay your price (P) but gain the value (V)

So in fact you are left with:

I - P + V. Income, minus price, plus value.

However V = P + A. So I - P + V can be written as

I - P + P + A

which = I + A

So what you are left with can be expressed as:

I - P + V

OR

I + A

Either expression is correct, right? Please stop here, and let me know. I want to be absolutly clear I am actually right in my explanation, and am understood. So please, inform me if I am wrong, or if I'm unclear

Yes. We agree and this is specifically what I was trying to say. I + A leaves out V which I find to be less troublesome than calculating V just so it can be deducted and then added back in, in some other way.



So, because this person was not in jail, he was never able to aquire his own place of living, his own lifestyle. The basic, necessary price of that lifestyle, we can again refer to as P. The total value he would have gained for that lifestyle is V. And once again V is AT LEAST = P

So he must be compensated, and since what he WOULD HAVE HAD is:

I - P + V His compensation (C) must therefore be:

C = I - P + V

OR

C = I + A

Either one is exactly the same right? We agree either one, in the end, is fair. Either one is just, they are, in the end, the exact same thing. C can be written as I - P + V OR I + A. It's exactly the same, and both are just. Can we agree to this?
Yes, we agree. I don't think you ever intended to disagree with me on this point, for the record. I assumed you were just mixing up the ideas when trying to express them mathematically. I'm glad we could work it out.




However I think we ALSO agree that it can NOT be:

C = I + V

This is not fair compensation. It is, to coin the legal phrase, unjust enrichment. if we give him I + V, this is double dipping, we've effectivly given him back the value of P twice. C = I + V is unjust enrichment on his behalf.

Yes, yes. That's correct. I was never advocating double-dipping. Although it's legally calling unjust enrichment, my experience is that lawyers, politicians (with a legal background) and judges love the term "double-dipping" because the image it conveys makes it so appropriate to the concept.



Therefore I say, "FINE! Adjust income for the cost of living, take it away. They will (or they SHOULD) get it back again when they are given V, since V includes that price ANYWAY. And, in this instance, it's possible that the court erred and DID grant them the value (V) WITHOUT subtracting the price (P)."

This is justice basically. The prisons should pay them what they are owed. But not more than they are owed. To have the prisons pay more than the former prisoners are owed is to grant an injustice to the prison.

Fair enough. However, in this case, it appears they didn't actually get it back again, since there doesn't seem to be an indication that double-dipping occurred in the first place (which would be necessary to justify lowering the award). It appears that this case appears to be precedent-setting, which means either unjust enrichment has always occurred in England or this idea of making them deduct for cost of living is relatively new. In another article I just found, it says that some others were only asked to reduce by 10% so it seems they don't have a standard formula. Also, it seems that they are suggesting that cost of living is somehow in proportion to their reward which seems unlikely to say the least.



To say otherwise, to say "yes, they were given more than they should, but it shouldn't be reduced because they were harmed, and why should we care if the prisons have to pay more than they should?" is to render that value of C into a punitive damage. it is to say they're paying more than they should, but that's ok because they just did a bad thing.

Can we agree that if this IS the case, that if the lower court did in fact grant damages based on lost income and this value (V) without subtracting P, then this would give them more than they should have gotten?

We agree that the court would have had to have granted unjust enrichment to justify the deduction. I'm not sure that happened here and the fact that they gave a blanket percentage does nothing to assuage my fears that this is exactly what the article called it. That fact that someone else who was equally wronged in the same case was reduced by a different amount sounds like they are just pulling numbers out of the air (I doubt they are, but come on).


Is this a fair statement that we can agree on? Not saying they DID, but that IF they did, it should be reduced, because if that is the case, they're getting more than they should? And that IF they are getting more than they should, this is in effect rendering a punitive damage on to the prison, which you yourself said you don't agree with?

Can we agree here?

If they unjustly enriched, they should remove the unjust enrichment. I think they should be careful about the appearances and they should have said they are just removing the compensation meant to return value never lost.


Hopefully so, moving on.

Now, but remember, compensation is both specific, and general

C = S + G

Here. I have to laugh. I'm 32. It'll be at least three more years before I have to reminded how the post began. ;)



Specific damages are those cold hard monitary things, and general are the more fuzzy emotional distress, pain and suffering, all that.

So in my formation, I - P is the specific damages. Income minus the price. Pure, monitary calculation, no room for discussion of emotional issues what so ever.

V is the general compensation. The value lost by being denied this lifestyle. That which he has lost by not being free. Here is where we talk about his emotional loss. V includes that emotional value, as discussed.

So

C = S + G
S = I - P
G = V

Thus

C = (I - P) + V

Here is where we disagree. Because P is being reimbursed me because I never received the service. A(m) is being reimbursed because I didn't get the extended value I would have gotten that cause me to seek such a service. So A(m) is really my emotional value. P is just the price of the item which I get in having the item (a comfortable bed, a nice care, etc.).

Granted, I see where you going with this, but in reality, I wouldn't need to be reimbursed for P if you hadn't taken it from me in the first part of the settlement.


The problem thus is, remember, seperate damages. I - P is specific, V is general.

I realize that you believe this and that the law supports you, but I don't agree. A(m) is general. V(m) is a combination of the real value of the item which is what sets the price and the emotional value of the item which incites me to buy it. Now, as I own it P generally goes down (homes may appreciate in value, or baseball cards, but let's face it, they are generally the exception) and A(m) can really move in any direction, but in legal cases, we treat P as a constant since the ownership of the item never actually occurs and P therefore can't depreciate or appreciate. This is why we say that V(m) = P + A(m), because the real value of the item, the objective value of the item still exists.

P is an objective value and should be handled all in S. Remember S is the cold, hard value of things and G is the fuzzy, emotional things. You are denying the objective value, P, for the object when you put it in G.


To write it as C = I + A is to blend them, it's to turn two entirely seperate catagories of damages into one single damages calculation. This, as I say, is the problem, we're merging two seperate things into one.

Again, I recognize your claim, but it denies that P is an objective cost and that it exists as part of V(m). So, in fact, you are blending them by putting P, an objective value, in the general category AND in the specific category. Certainly, it can't be both.



Now, here's where you say "why the hell are we doing it this way? What is the point of two seperate things? Why are we calculating two entirely seperate things, then writing the calculation as I - P + V and going through all that when we can simply make it I + A?"

In other words, why the hell DONT we merge two seperate things into one?

No. Actually, I don't. What I say is how you can you claim I'm blurring the categories when you're putting the objective cost of the thing, P, in both categories even though you've already established it as a specific item, falling under S.



I'm going to stop here, and let you read this, there is a justification for this, there IS a reason we keep them seperate, but before I go into that, I just want to make sure that I'm understood, and I haven't managed to bugger it all up again.

So respond, don't give me your argument, just yet, just let me know if I'm fairly and adequatly explaining your position.

I admit the error was mine, I want to make sure that we can understand each other from now on. Is what I have said so far a fair and accurate portrayal of the general understanding?

No need to harp on it. I saw all along what you were thinking there, which is why I explained. I appreciate that you're stepping through this, as I'm doing, because it will make it much easier to prevent another misunderstanding. So here is my reply. It'll be a bit before I reply again, but I look forward to it.

Oh, and you're an idiot. (Nobody will read this stuff if we don't get angry or call each other names or something.)

By the way, I find it amusing that you think you're leading me down a path that will lynch my argument, and I think the same thing. Let's see who's right.

I'm not sure if this has been brought up, but I'm not seeing anywhere in the article where it says that they are talking about specific compensation like Arthais 101 and Neesika are talking about. All the article says on the matter is that 25% of their compensation was withheld. So is it an assumption that that is what they are talking about or am I missing something? And if it is an assumption Arthais 101 and Nesika probably shouldn't be going off on people who don't make that assumption for not reading the article.

Woah....my headache is too bad for all this math.....

hehe

Woah....my headache is too bad for all this math.....

hehe

I'm loving this. I swear if it was possible to debate in only numbers I would never stop giggling and peeing on myself with joy. I actually loved when Ny Nordland was messing up all that stuff on population growth because showing him the calculations was great fun. Plus, I'm fairly confident he showed it to his professor.

Let me know if you want me to divide your legs. ;-)

I'm not sure if this has been brought up, but I'm not seeing anywhere in the article where it says that they are talking about specific compensation like Arthais 101 and Neesika are talking about. All the article says on the matter is that 25% of their compensation was withheld. So is it an assumption that that is what they are talking about or am I missing something? And if it is an assumption Arthais 101 and Nesika probably shouldn't be going off on people who don't make that assumption for not reading the article.

It is an assumption, really. Especially since the amount is a flat rate of the total, and not of some part of the compensation. So the likelihood that a portion of a value is calculated as a percentage of the total value, a fairly odd calculation, is unlikely to say the least.

Let me know if you want me to divide your legs. ;-)

:eek:

It is an assumption, really. Especially since the amount is a flat rate of the total, and not of some part of the compensation. So the likelihood that a portion of a value is calculated as a percentage of the total value, a fairly odd calculation, is unlikely to say the least.

the thing is, in my experience, the value of reports on law and legal issues from newspapers is...well...to evaluate it as "crap" would be an insult to crap.

It's very vague, and very hard to get at really what's going on.

There are really 4 possibilities here:

1) this is the total compensation, and the 25% reduction was done to the portion of compensation that is specific damages

2) this isn't even the general damages yet, so this is really just a calculation off specific damages and they haven't gotten to general damages yet

3) the 25% was off both specific and general damages

4) britain doesn't do general damages

1 I'm fine with..provided that the initial compensation was double dipping

2 I'm fine with, just as long as the reduction is taken into account when it gets to calculating general damages

3 and 4 would be a travesty of justice.

I'm really going on the assumption that it's either 1 and 2 because...well I've worked for the british government, their legal system is pretty fair (some would say TOO fair). I just, in my experience, can not imagine either #3 or #4 really being the case here.

I could be wrong, and if I am, it's horrible and in no way I support it. I just...can't imagine it.

the thing is, in my experience, the value of reports on law and legal issues from newspapers is...well...to evaluate it as "crap" would be an insult to crap.

It's very vague, and very hard to get at really what's going on.

There are really 4 possibilities here:

1) this is the total compensation, and the 25% reduction was done to the portion of compensation that is specific damages

2) this isn't even the general damages yet, so this is really just a calculation off specific damages and they haven't gotten to general damages yet

3) the 25% was off both specific and general damages

4) britain doesn't do general damages

1 I'm fine with..provided that the initial compensation was double dipping

2 I'm fine with, just as long as the reduction is taken into account when it gets to calculating general damages

3 and 4 would be a travesty of justice.

I'm really going on the assumption that it's either 1 and 2 because...well I've worked for the british government, their legal system is pretty fair (some would say TOO fair). I just, in my experience, can not imagine either #3 or #4 really being the case here.

I could be wrong, and if I am, it's horrible and in no way I support it. I just...can't imagine it.
Well yes, but as the assumption isn't in the article you shouldn't have criticized people for not reading the article when they didn't make that assumption.

Wtf

Fair enough. I told you, you might get me on law, but on math, well, good luck with that. Overall it doesn't change your argument particularly, which is why I pointed that out. I'm going to break up the rest so you can be sure I'm following along, and if you disagree with some response I have you can identify where we went wrong (I always assume that miscommunication is a dance where both partners are working together well). Anywho, let's get started...

Fair enough

So far, I'm with you and I totally agree. I'll restate some things just to be sure we're on the same page.

You've assigned A to the X + Y value we talked about which is now A(m) + P, respectively. I know you want to drop the previous examples, I'm just trying to give as much to work with as possible if end up moving apart again.

So if we were to look what I expect to be the compensation based on what I was saying before it would be I - P + V(m) or I - P + A(m) + P. You may or may not agree with this, but I'm just showing you where I'm at, at this point in the post.

You beat me to it. As you noted, I got to this next step.





Agreed. You and I both know it's more complicated than that, but this definitely covers what we're looking at for this thread.

Correct, but it serves this example well.


Yes. We agree and this is specifically what I was trying to say. I + A leaves out V which I find to be less troublesome than calculating V just so it can be deducted and then added back in, in some other way.

Fair enough yes.

Yes, yes. That's correct. I was never advocating double-dipping. Although it's legally calling unjust enrichment, my experience is that lawyers, politicians (with a legal background) and judges love the term "double-dipping" because the image it conveys makes it so appropriate to the concept.

You double dipped the chip!

/seinfeld

Fair enough. However, in this case, it appears they didn't actually get it back again, since there doesn't seem to be an indication that double-dipping occurred in the first place (which would be necessary to justify lowering the award). It appears that this case appears to be precedent-setting, which means either unjust enrichment has always occurred in England or this idea of making them deduct for cost of living is relatively new. In another article I just found, it says that some others were only asked to reduce by 10% so it seems they don't have a standard formula. Also, it seems that they are suggesting that cost of living is somehow in proportion to their reward which seems unlikely to say the least.

I will say the methodology for this reduction is...unusual, but not unheard of. Sometimes when you jsut can't tell you look at systems and say "what's the average?" It's possible that about 25% is average for their income.

It's not precise, but perhaps it's as best as what we can do.


We agree that the court would have had to have granted unjust enrichment to justify the deduction. I'm not sure that happened here and the fact that they gave a blanket percentage does nothing to assuage my fears that this is exactly what the article called it. That fact that someone else who was equally wronged in the same case was reduced by a different amount sounds like they are just pulling numbers out of the air (I doubt they are, but come on).

I don't presume to know the methodology, but it IS england we're talking about here. For all the jokes they're not some corrupt 3rd world country, they do have a fairly sophisticated legal system. But yes, I only support this on the assumption there has been some unjust enrichment.


If they unjustly enriched, they should remove the unjust enrichment. I think they should be careful about the appearances and they should have said they are just removing the compensation meant to return value never lost.

Agreed, if this is what they're after, they had a piss poor way of explaining their justifications. But as I said, I care about what is just, not whether they do a good job of explaining to the public WHY it was just.

That's a bonus.

Here. I have to laugh. I'm 32. It'll be at least three more years before I have to reminded how the post began. ;)

heh, sometimes I forget what I've already said.


Here is where we disagree. Because P is being reimbursed me because I never received the service. A(m) is being reimbursed because I didn't get the extended value I would have gotten that cause me to seek such a service. So A(m) is really my emotional value. P is just the price of the item which I get in having the item (a comfortable bed, a nice care, etc.).

Granted, I see where you going with this, but in reality, I wouldn't need to be reimbursed for P if you hadn't taken it from me in the first part of the settlement.

Granted, ok, fair enough.

I realize that you believe this and that the law supports you, but I don't agree. A(m) is general. V(m) is a combination of the real value of the item which is what sets the price and the emotional value of the item which incites me to buy it. Now, as I own it P generally goes down (homes may appreciate in value, or baseball cards, but let's face it, they are generally the exception) and A(m) can really move in any direction, but in legal cases, we treat P as a constant since the ownership of the item never actually occurs and P therefore can't depreciate or appreciate. This is why we say that V(m) = P + A(m), because the real value of the item, the objective value of the item still exists.

P is an objective value and should be handled all in S. Remember S is the cold, hard value of things and G is the fuzzy, emotional things. You are denying the objective value, P, for the object when you put it in G.


Again, I recognize your claim, but it denies that P is an objective cost and that it exists as part of V(m). So, in fact, you are blending them by putting P, an objective value, in the general category AND in the specific category. Certainly, it can't be both.

Ok, if I'm getting at what you're saying it's this. Specific damages deal with cold values, general deals with the fuzzy emotional stuff

P is a cold value, it's a specific number. A(m) is fuzzy.

V(m) is a construct of both, as it is A(m) + P, and as such is a combination of a "hard" number and a "fuzzy" number.

I was going on the contention that you had a problem with dividing damages. Is it fair to say that you don't actually object to the dividing of damages in general?

is your contention instead that you object to the inclusion of V(m) as general damages since general damages is concerned only with "fuzzy" values and V(m) contains both?

As such, instead of just broad "compensation" being C = I -P + V(m), you're ok with the specific/general split but object to V(m) being included in general damages since inherently it is a value that is made up of two sub values, one objective monetary and one subjective?

is it fair to say you would be more comfortable with a scheme where:

C = S + G
S = I
G = A(m)

?

I think I understand your objection. And I actually don't disagree, and actually the law really doesn't disagree either.

I was under the impression that you were arguing against the idea of seperate damage catagories all together.

In general, actually, this is fine, S = I and G = A(m) is acceptable, and perhaps preferable.

You should only delve into the formula I - P + V(m) when the calculation of the initial damages was wrong, namely when G is calculated to be V(m) not A(m).

In this instance, the value of the double dip/unjust enrichment is P, which thus, in the interests of fairness and justice, must be removed

If you object to the idea of the inclusion of V(m) into G and say it should be A(m) the purely fuzzy value, and thus, altering the calculation of S, I'm fine with that.

The reason I wrote it the way I did has more to do with HOW juries come up with what they do. When juries deal with damages, more often than not, they don't view it the way you do. They don't say to themselves "what is the value added to having this". They simply ask "what is it actually worth?"

In other words, juries have a tendancy, automatically, to try and figure out what V(m) is, NOT A(m).

Yes, ideally G should be based on A(m) NOT V(m), but this is ideal. You got to remember, this is decided by juries, normal people. They don't tend to think "what is the value added to this?" they just think "what is it worth?"

And they use their gut intuition of "what is this worth?" to calculate their general damages.

And when they do so, you have to take away the value of P which, as you say, and are probably right, should never have been included in the calculation of general damages in the first place.

And when we are forced to remove the value of P, we place it in the specific damages catagory, because, well, it's a specific monitary value.

Oh, and you're an idiot. (Nobody will read this stuff if we don't get angry or call each other names or something.)

Sure thing, dumbass.

By the way, I find it amusing that you think you're leading me down a path that will lynch my argument, and I think the same thing. Let's see who's right.

It might be because I misunderstood your argument. I thought you were arguing for the elimination of the catagories entirely. I think that you were merely arguing with my definition of

S = I - P
G = V(m)

because V(m) is actually A(m) + P and since P is a hard value, it doesn't belong in G, and A(m) would be a more appropriate value, thus the proper formation is:

S = I
G = A(m)

Which, in an objective, rationale mannor...is true, I have no issues with this. I'm saying the law TYPICALLY does it the way I said because, again, it has to do with the way a jury, 12 normal people off the street, typically think.

And when you get 12 normal people off the street, you gotta try to bend the system so that it works the way normal people see it, not mathematicians see it (as long, of course, as the results are the same). And normal people don't tend to ask themselves "gee, what is the value added to that apartment for him above the price of the rent that he was already paying?" Normal people are more direct than that, they simply ask themselves "what is it WORTH to him?" and go from there.

Well yes, but as the assumption isn't in the article you shouldn't have criticized people for not reading the article when they didn't make that assumption.

I criticize people who say they are being BILLED for a SERVICE. This is patently untrue.

people are free to reach different conclusions than me, but the only conclusion that differs from mine, yet is still consistant with the facts, is that their compensation was unjustly mitigated.

Not that they were BILLED for anything. It's a perfectly fair assumption to believe that their damages were unfairly mitigated. I don't make that assumption because I think the british legal system is better than that, but it's possible.

It's NOT a fair or rational assumption to say they were billed for room and board however.

the thing is, in my experience, the value of reports on law and legal issues from newspapers is...well...to evaluate it as "crap" would be an insult to crap.

It's very vague, and very hard to get at really what's going on.

There are really 4 possibilities here:

1) this is the total compensation, and the 25% reduction was done to the portion of compensation that is specific damages

2) this isn't even the general damages yet, so this is really just a calculation off specific damages and they haven't gotten to general damages yet

3) the 25% was off both specific and general damages

4) britain doesn't do general damages

1 I'm fine with..provided that the initial compensation was double dipping

2 I'm fine with, just as long as the reduction is taken into account when it gets to calculating general damages

3 and 4 would be a travesty of justice.

I'm really going on the assumption that it's either 1 and 2 because...well I've worked for the british government, their legal system is pretty fair (some would say TOO fair). I just, in my experience, can not imagine either #3 or #4 really being the case here.

I could be wrong, and if I am, it's horrible and in no way I support it. I just...can't imagine it.

According to several of the articles I read... Hold on let me find one....(see below) they did get general compensation, and reviewing the amount that was deducted, it must have been a percentage of the specific compensation. The only thing is, this still suggests that one would naturally pay a percentage of your wage, rather than a specific amount. You dealt with that in my other post, however.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/prisons/story/0,,2000793,00.html

*snip*.

Ok, that was easy. Yes, I was never arguing for the elimination of categories. I was arguing that P is unnecessary to deal with so long as you never add it into to any part (either in order to return money to me that I didn't spend, or to charge me for services I didn't get). That was my point. You seem to agree. Man, that was easy.

On to Hilbert.

Ok, that was easy. Yes, I was never arguing for the elimination of categories. I was arguing that P is unnecessary to deal with so long as you never add it into to any part (either in order to return money to me that I didn't spend, or to charge me for services I didn't get). That was my point. You seem to agree. Man, that was easy.

I agree on a theoritical point. I do not find it fatal to the problem. I in fact, perhaps find this system better....from a practical standpoint.

As I said, juries are made of common folk, and normal people don't ask themselves "what's the value added to this" they ask themselves "what is this worth".

While logically one should begin with finding "A", most normal people will intuitively move first to find "V".

According to several of the articles I read... Hold on let me find one....(see below) they did get general compensation, and reviewing the amount that was deducted, it must have been a percentage of the specific compensation. The only thing is, this still suggests that one would naturally pay a percentage of your wage, rather than a specific amount. You dealt with that in my other post, however.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/prisons/story/0,,2000793,00.html

Well ok, in general, I'm fine with it, as long as I said, the compensation is still adequately reflective.

In fact, this very article you link discusses EXACTLY what I was talking about earlier:

Their solicitor, Susie Labinjoh, of the London law firm Hodge Jones & Allen, said: "If somebody was in a traffic accident and [then] hospital for three months, and the defendant turned round and said 'Oh, well, you've saved money by not spending money on food whilst you're in hospital', I think most people would be appalled.

Most people probably would be appalled, however, that is a perfectly acceptable legal argument. Compensation is just that, compensation. It's not penalty, it's not punishment. It's not "you did something wrong so we're going to take this from you because you are a bad bad person". That's punitive damages, whole other thing.

Compensation serves one, and ONLY one purpose. To put you back where you were. And if you save some expenses then of COURSE you take that into account.

That's what compensation is. Most people would be appalled perhaps. Personally, I'm ok with it. It's perfectly fine with me.

By the way, I'm with you jocobia in that I find it morally bad that the government withheld their payment. They had a right to appeal that 25%, that's their right.

But if they're going to only have contention with that 25%, for gods sake, pay the men the 75% then figure out what to do with the other 25%. If you already admitted you will AT LEAST pay 3/4, then just pay that up front already.

So if I was very wealthy, from Branson up through Murdoch up to Gates level
and falsely imprison someone, don't get any jail time myself, get ordered to pay damages, exactly how much can I claim back cos of keeping my hostage/kidnapee whatever alive exactly?

Further to that, can I further calculate that if single , my hostage would probably have been dating if not in my tender care and deduct such potential expenses,
ditto marriage and parenthood, great savings on mortgage to, little opportunity to take out loans, heck for some people you could certainly argue a positive benefit.

Could it be possible to be wrongly imprisoned and for courts to find you had benefited more than you lost and suddenly find yourself saddled with prison loans
instead of student loans.

This could be an income generator for government, what if we made all secondary schools into boarding prisons, it would certainly keep teenage thugs off the
streets, no need to exclude just give solitary instead. No teenagers on the streets = no teenage crime and no teenage binge drinking, should mean no teenage
pregnancies either. We could solve all our social ills this way. Teenagers could eventually leave boarding prison(school) to be transferred to boarding prison (college/university) , they could still have prison debt but thats only the same as student debt anyway AND all young people would arrive at the age of at least 20 without one single one of them having a criminal record.

Now am I getting carried away here a bit?

So if I was very wealthy, from Branson up through Murdoch up to Gates level
and falsely imprison someone, don't get any jail time myself, get ordered to pay damages, exactly how much can I claim back cos of keeping my hostage/kidnapee whatever alive exactly?

well first off, kidnapping is a crime you know...you do actually get jail time.

well first off, kidnapping is a crime you know...you do actually get jail time.

So is forgery (which is how these gentlemen got false imprisoned in the first place). In a lot of these types of cases, there is wildly illegal and unethical behavior on the part of cops and/or attorneys. I really wish they would come down with the hammer on that activity (they may have in this case. I don't know.)

So is forgery (which is how these gentlemen got false imprisoned in the first place). In a lot of these types of cases, there is wildly illegal and unethical behavior on the part of cops and/or attorneys. I really wish they would come down with the hammer on that activity (they may have in this case. I don't know.)

Personally I think they should spend an amount of time equal to the time that the people they illegally put in jail had to spend there.

preferably in the same cell.

THAT is justice.

Personally I think they should spend an amount of time equal to the time that the people they illegally put in jail had to spend there.

preferably in the same cell.

THAT is justice.

It's equivalent to kidnapping. What would the penalty be if I kidnapped five men for 10 to 18 years?

It's equivalent to kidnapping. What would the penalty be if I kidnapped five men for 10 to 18 years?

well if you could prove they benefited, they might have to pay you quite a lot of money?

It's equivalent to kidnapping. What would the penalty be if I kidnapped five men for 10 to 18 years?

In the UK? no idea. The federal sentencing guidelines are:

§2A4.1. Kidnapping, Abduction, Unlawful Restraint

(a) Base Offense Level: 24

(b) Specific Offense Characteristics

(1) If a ransom demand or a demand upon government was made, increase by 6 levels.

(2)(A) If the victim sustained permanent or life-threatening bodily injury, increase by 4 levels; (B) if the victim sustained serious bodily injury, increase by 2 levels; or (C) if the degree of injury is between that specified in subdivisions (A) and (B), increase by 3 levels.

(3) If a dangerous weapon was used, increase by 2 levels.

(4)(A) If the victim was not released before thirty days had elapsed, increase by 2 levels.

(B) If the victim was not released before seven days had elapsed, increase by 1 level.

(C) If the victim was released before twenty-four hours had elapsed, decrease by 1 level.

(5) If the victim was sexually exploited, increase by 3 levels.

(6) If the victim is a minor and, in exchange for money or other consideration, was placed in the care or custody of another person who had no legal right to such care or custody of the victim, increase by 3 levels.

(7) If the victim was kidnapped, abducted, or unlawfully restrained during the commission of, or in connection with, another offense or escape therefrom; or if another offense was committed during the kidnapping, abduction, or unlawful restraint, increase to --

(A) the offense level from the Chapter Two offense guideline applicable to that other offense if such offense guideline includes an adjustment for kidnapping, abduction, or unlawful restraint, or otherwise takes such conduct into account; or

(B) 4 plus the offense level from the offense guideline applicable to that other offense, but in no event greater than level 43, in any other case,

if the resulting offense level is greater than that determined above

At an offense level of 24 the minimum, for a first time offender, is...51 to 63 years.

http://www.ussc.gov/2005guid/5a.htm

well if you could prove they benefited, they might have to pay you quite a lot of money?

impossible, one can not benefit from their crimes.

Or, to put it in a more simplistic way, if there are no damages (come up with some damned situation where someone could be wrongfully held for 18 years and have no damages) then there's no liability.

Damages are necessary for there to be a tort.

impossible, one can not benefit from their crimes.

Or, to put it in a more simplistic way, if there are no damages (come up with some damned situation where someone could be wrongfully held for 18 years and have no damages) then there's no liability.

Damages are necessary for there to be a tort.

Cannot legally benefit from their crimes, summitch.

Or, to put it in a more simplistic way, if there are no damages (come up with some damned situation where someone could be wrongfully held for 18 years and have no damages) then there's no liability.

False imprisonment does not require damages, since it's based on the writ of trespass, n'est pas?

But sans damages, compensation is not all that likely.

False imprisonment does not require damages, since it's based on the writ of trespass, n'est pas?

But sans damages, compensation is not all that likely.

*thinks*

Erm, right, the tort of false impreisonment does not have damages as an essential element as the "damage" is assumed inherent in the act of the trespass on the person.

However unless you can prove you are materially harmed, compensation will be difficult to determine.

*thinks*

Erm, right, the tort of false impreisonment does not have damages as an essential element as the "damage" is assumed inherent in the act of the trespass on the person.

However unless you can prove you are materially harmed, compensation will be difficult to determine.
Such a little thing, but I have to admit it's thrilling to catch you in even the slightest error :D
*snuggles*

Such a little thing, but I have to admit it's thrilling to catch you in even the slightest error :D
*snuggles*

Meh, I caught him twice in this thread. Imagine if I started stalking him like you do.

Shut up. I'm 'ignoring' you.

What can I say, I'm in love:p

Shut up. I'm 'ignoring' you.

What can I say, I'm in love:p

I won't be ignored, Sin.

/vague reference

How about you ignore me when you think I'm being a penis and you love when I'm being my regular adorable self? You know you want to.

Grrr, but if you start in lovable and end up as a penis, you might draw me into not ignoring you when your in a half-lovable/half penis mode.

Alright, alright, but I reserve the right to stomp out in a total huff from any conversation we have.

Grrr, but if you start in lovable and end up as a penis, you might draw me into not ignoring you when your in a half-lovable/half penis mode.

Alright, alright, but I reserve the right to stomp out in a total huff from any conversation we have.

Now, who would believe that would ever happen? Sometimes I'm a lovable penis and sometimes my penis is lovable. Whatcha gonna do about that?

iIGNORE

iIGNORE

Does that actually work? Like in video games where you just type:

/ignore Neesika

Does that actually work? Like in video games where you just type:

/ignore Neesika

Wouldn't it be cool if life had an /ignore ?

/mmogeekmoment

Wouldn't it be cool if life had an /ignore ?

/mmogeekmoment

I do that all the time, out loud.

"Wow, good movie slash useless review"

Or:

"Eric, you kind of smell!"
"Slash ignore."

/bunchofwankers

So, group sex?

Can't. I believe in animal rights AND I speak geek, so I'm twice unlayable.

Can't. I believe in animal rights AND I speak geek, so I'm twice unlayable.

......


shit

/bunchofwankers

So, group sex?

Well now that you mention it...