Modifies provisions relating to restitution for individuals who are actually innocent
The implementation of SB886 will significantly affect how restitution is determined and awarded in Missouri. It provides a clearer framework for exonerated individuals to seek financial compensation for their wrongful convictions. This change is expected to enhance the protections for innocent individuals in the justice system while also delineating the boundaries within which claims can be made. The bill also automatically grants an expungement order for those deemed actually innocent, which shall remove all records of arrest, plea, trial, or conviction from public access, restoring their status prior to the wrongful conviction.
Overall, SB886 emphasizes accountability and rectifies wrongful convictions by formalizing the state's obligation to compensate those wrongfully imprisoned. While supporters argue that this bill is a step in the right direction toward justice, critics fear that fiscal limitations might hinder its effectiveness, leaving some individuals without the restitution they rightfully deserve. The introduction of this bill continues to fuel discussions on broader justice reform in Missouri.
Senate Bill 886, introduced by Senator Washington, aims to amend Missouri law regarding restitution for individuals who have been wrongfully convicted of a felony. The bill proposes the repeal of the existing statute, section 650.058, and the enactment of new sections that outline the conditions under which individuals can claim restitution after being exonerated. An individual deemed 'actually innocent' after serving time may claim restitution of $100 per day for each day of wrongful incarceration, provided they meet specific criteria, including exhausting all appeals and not serving concurrent sentences for other crimes.
Discussion around SB886 has highlighted important points of contention. Critics of the previous restitution law argued that it inadequately addressed the needs of wrongfully convicted individuals. With SB886, there are concerns regarding the implications of sovereign immunity, particularly how the state will manage financial obligations for restitution if appropriated funds are insufficient. Additionally, the measure tightly restricts who can file for restitution, as only the wrongfully convicted individual or their legal guardian can pursue claims, excluding heirs or assigns, which raises questions about equity and access to justice for those individuals.