I’ve been thinking about the Bain case and whether David should receive government compensation or not and I had to conclude that even Arthur Allan Thomas (why all three names?) should not have received any government compensation.
Arthur lost ten (ish) years of his life, his loss was an injustice and the compensation he received was less than the damage he suffered – still, he should not have received any government compensation because he wasn’t wronged by the government. And the public, the owners of government money, are not responsible for the injustice that happened to Arthur.
The people responsible for Arthur’s unjust loss were the individuals that planted the evidence against him. Compensation should come have from them and they should go to prison for the same length of time that they intended for Arthur Allan Thomas.
A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.
If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days.
The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother.
Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. The rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you.
Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
(This principle of equal punishment for false witnesses is sorely lacking from our justice system where even the police are willing to make stuff up to get the result they want.)
Regarding David Bain I’m still questioning whether he should be compensated; and if so, who should pay his compensation? Was he wronged by someone?