The Dilemma of Compensating for False Imprisonment

Even though the principle of compensation that is followed in the criminal justice system of the United States is usually discussed as fair, just, and effective to address the needs of citizens who became the victims and need repayment, the problem is in the fact that there is a category of victims for whom it is almost impossible to determine the size of compensation. It is important to focus on the problem of false imprisonment as a result of weaknesses that are observed in the U.S. criminal justice system. In their bookPicking Cotton: Our Memoir of Injustice and Redemption,, Ronald Cotton, and a story of false imprisonment from a perspective that no compensation can be discussed as adequate for being wrongly convicted because the life of a wrongly imprisoned person changes significantly (Thompson-Cannino, Cotton, and Torneo 8). In addition, according to the ideas presented by in the article Wrongfully Incarcerated, Randomly Compensated How to Fund Wrongful-Conviction Compensation Statutes that was published inIndiana Law Reviewin 2011, may have lost years of their lives, their families, the opportunity to go to school, or the chance to gain or keep employment (Mostaghel 509). From this point, false imprisonment can be considered as a case of injustice because it is impossible to measure all the damages associated with the period of incarceration, and it is impossible to state the set adequate repayment for experienced losses. Thus, the tort of false imprisonment should be discussed as the infringement of individuals civil liberties and rights, and there is not enough compensation to pay damages and losses faced by wrongly imprisoned persons.