People who are convicted of a crime and found guilty, spend some time jail or other punishment and then later found not guilty should always get compensation. 


If they are found not guilty then they are innocent, at least legally, and so should receive compensation for the loss they have suffered.

Why is this idea important?

Our country has always had the attitude and belief that someone is innocent until found guilty.  It is vital to a free and decent country that this continues and so if someone is found not guilty of an offence for which they have already been punished then they deserve compensation.


There MAY be a case for a reduction/removal of compensation where someone is found not guilty on a technicality but not, eg, in the case of Sion Jenkins where, I understand, the jury just could not agree on a verdict and so he is legally innocent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *