As forensic technology becomes more advanced, we are now able to use new techniques, such as DNA analysis, to reexamine old cases. If it is discovered that the defendant was wrongfully found guilty as new evidence comes to light, the accused should be repaid for the time and labor that was expended during their time in prison.
A person only gets to live one. That man probably lived the best years of his life in prison for something he didn't do. The judge doesn't care. The prosecutor doesn't care. They just collect their paychecks and move on. The man should receive retribution because callous souls ruined his life.
Yes, the Illinois man cleared in the 1991 rape after 25 years in prison should receive retribution. He was arrested in error and his life was destroyed by the mistakes of others. He is certainly entitled to be compensated for his pain and suffering. In addition, those who made the errors should be held accountable and be forced to pay retribution.
I think you picked the wrong word here.
Restitution: recompense for injury or loss.
Retribution: punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act.
The only people he might deserve retribution against would be against people who conspired to frame him for a crime they knew he didn't commit (of which the article makes no mention, case, or evidence of) or those who were criminally negligent in investigation or trial (again no mention of).
First of all, who can he get retribution against? The victim? The State? If he was wrongly convicted, there should be some mechanism to help him become made almost whole again. He's lost years of his life, probably his livelihood and maybe friends and family, so it's probably impossible to make him whole again, but there should be some way to try to make it up to him. However retribution isn't possible; that's almost like saying he gets to take revenge on someone.