Where Can I Sign Up For This?

[Lord Jim]

Australian gets $100,000 after shampoo found clean

DARWIN, Australia (AP) — Authorities have compensated an Australian man $100,000 after he was wrongly accused of trying to smuggle drugs into the country in bottles of shampoo.

Neil Parry of Darwin spent three days in jail last year after he was arrested at Darwin Airport and accused of trafficking liquid ecstasy. His boat and two friends' houses were searched.

But his two bottles of Pantene Pro-V shampoo and conditioner contained exactly what the labels said.

Australian Customs and Border Protection said in a statement Monday that there were "mistakes made during the presumptive testing of Mr. Parry's goods" and additional procedures have been introduced when conducting drug tests.

Okay, now being wrongfully arrested for a crime is no fun....

But a 100K in compensation for three days in jail?

There are people who've been wrongly convicted of crimes who spend years in jail that don't get that after they've been exonerated and released....

Makes me think that maybe I'll go to Australia and see if I can figure out some way to get myself wrongfully arrested....

I'll gladly do three days in the slammer in exchange for $100,000....

Hell, I'll do a whole week....

[loCAtek]

Makes me think that maybe I'll go to Australia and see if I can figure out some way to get myself wrongfully arrested....

Try claiming your smoother, shinier locks are split-end free, due to MDMA.

[Scooter]

Apparently they take unreasonable search and seizure quite seriously.

I only wish they were as picky about it here. The direction the Supreme Court of Canada seems to be taking wrt illegally obtained evidence is concerning.

[Gob]

Apparently they take unreasonable search and seizure quite seriously.

Unlawful imprisonment more so.

"It is not worth it, no," Mr Parry said. "I would rather it never happened," he said.

He said most of the money would go towards his legal expenses

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/darwin- ... z1ePBpKfAn

[Scooter]

How long must have the nightmare gone on after he was released that he racked up most of what he was compensated in legal expenses? It sounds like his lawyers were kept pretty busy getting him cleared of charges that were completely bogus.

[BoSoxGal]

I think any disincentive to unjust prosecution is a good thing as a matter of public policy.

[Andrew D]

But a 100K in compensation for three days in jail?

There are people who've been wrongly convicted of crimes who spend years in jail that don't get that after they've been exonerated and released....

Which is a gross injustice.

I think any disincentive to unjust prosecution is a good thing as a matter of public policy.

I agree. But how large a disincentive is something like this? The people who perpetrated the injustice are not the people who pay the compensation. Is an award like this really going to have any significant effect on the behavior of the people who perpetrated the injustice?

[Jarlaxle]

Should be $100,000,000 per day, PLUS his legal expenses. And the ones responsible should spend the rest of their lives in solitary confinement.

[Long Run]

I think any disincentive to unjust prosecution is a good thing as a matter of public policy.

I agree. * * * The people who perpetrated the injustice are not the people who pay the compensation.

And this is the failure of several of our laws -- the actual wrong-doers suffer little or no penalty for their over-reaching. Yet taxpayers pay for their mistake. Same thing happens with the ridiculous exclusionary rule -- if the police get evidence without following procedure, the evidence is thrown out and society gets to live with a known criminal free to practice their trade; society pays again, but the police officer suffers little. Better result -- convict the criminal and penalize the offending officer.

[Scooter]

Even better result- set the criminal free and imprison the offending officer in gen pop.

Sending out the message that convictions can be obtained by flouting constitutional protections is dangerous and the most direct route to establishing a police state.

[Long Run]

Except the 4th Amendment and its dysfunctional child the exclusionary rule aren't really there to protect known criminals; they are there to protect honest people like us. If a criminal is found out by illegal means, he is still a criminal and should be punished as such. The wrongdoer policeman should be punished, and punished more severely if he violates the rights of a lawful person (who should also receive compensation for such violation).

[Scooter]

And where is the line between a criminal and an innocent person if the 4th amendment can be flouted at will? There is absolutely nothing stopping police from planting evidence and "finding" it via a warrantless search, instantly turning an innocent person into a guilty one.

[rubato]

Except the 4th Amendment and its dysfunctional child the exclusionary rule aren't really there to protect known criminals; they are there to protect honest people like us. If a criminal is found out by illegal means, he is still a criminal and should be punished as such. The wrongdoer policeman should be punished, and punished more severely if he violates the rights of a lawful person (who should also receive compensation for such violation).

And who decides which group are "known criminals"?

yrs,
rubato