Modifies provisions relating to wrongful convictions
The legislation significantly impacts the legal landscape regarding wrongful convictions, enabling formerly incarcerated individuals to more easily seek restitution. Damages are defined by the bill as $179 per day of wrongful imprisonment, capped at $65,000 per fiscal year, and at least $25,000 for additional years served under supervision. Additionally, claimants may be entitled to attorney's fees and nonmonetary relief such as counseling or housing assistance, which aims to ease their reintegration into society.
Senate Bill 1056 aims to reform the provisions related to compensating individuals wrongfully convicted of crimes in Missouri. Specifically, it repeals section 650.058 and enacts new language that allows a 'claimant', defined as someone who was wrongfully convicted and subsequently imprisoned, to seek damages from the state. The requirement for establishing a claim includes proving that the conviction was overturned or vacated, confirming the individual did not commit the alleged offense, and ensuring no malfeasance on part of the claimant contributed to the initial wrongful conviction.
Debate surrounding SB1056 indicates that while there is support for compensating the wrongfully convicted, concerns remain over state liability and the limitations imposed on restitution amounts. Some lawmakers argue that the caps might not equitably reflect the experiences of individuals wrongfully imprisoned, suggesting that the financial relief could be insufficient considering the emotional and social damages incurred. Furthermore, the provision that claimants cannot pursue further civil claims against the state upon receiving compensation raises issues regarding the overall accountability and fairness of the system.
Under the new law, claimants must file suits within two years after their conviction is overturned or after being pardoned. Additionally, the decision for a claimant's award will be determined by a court without a jury trial, which emphasizes the bill’s approach to streamline the process yet raises questions about the fairness of judicial review in such sensitive cases.