What's needed is a framework that sets a standard for compensation, but allows for an impartial review that can adjust restitution figures based on individual circumstances. Nor should the state look to be stingy with those who have been so drastically wronged. Dedge, whose story became the focus of a documentary shown at this year's Sundance Film Festival, has spoken eloquently about the changes years in prison wrought -- the fear of crowds, the constant urge to seek permission for the simplest acts. He'd never talked on a cell phone, never used a computer.

Using a formula set by the state of Alabama, Florida could easily award Dedge $1 million or more. That sounds reasonable, considering what the state took from him.

The editorial goes further and addresses a very important issue--the need to get rid of arbitrary time limits on bringing innocence claims:

The Dedge case should also inspire lawmakers to look beyond the bottom line. Over the past few years, the Legislature wrote laws giving inmates access to DNA testing that might prove their innocence. It was a step in the right direction, but the laws didn't go far enough. Many inmates could lose their chance to appeal due to looming deadlines. For others, the one-shot nature of the appeals law denies them access to newer, better testing methods. Many also want to challenge scientific evidence used at their trials that has since been discredited.

Artificial time limits shouldn't matter. If there's a good reason to suspect innocence, and a new test that could prove it, the state owes inmates a right to make their case.

The bottom line:

The Dedge case goes beyond the fate of one 43-year-old man. It speaks to a common fear that an innocent person can be arrested, convicted and imprisoned at the hands of an uncaring state. By passing strong laws to protect the innocent and comfort the wrongly convicted, state leaders advance justice for all.