3 ms·
It's complicated, though. How do you define "wrongfully arrested"? "Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent". "Charges dropped" is not the same as "innocent".
by beat 11y ago
It's complicated, though. How do you define "wrongfully arrested"? "Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent". "Charges dropped" is not the same as "innocent". This is not to say that all those arrested are guilty - far from it! But you would need a separate legal mechanism to distinguish actual wrongful arrests - and sadly, that mechanism would almost certainly be as badly biased by race and class as the existing courts.
- ncallaway 11y agoThat's fair. "Wrongfully jailed" would probably be a better terminology. I wouldn't apply this to someone who sat overnight in the drunk-tank, but I would apply it to someone who spent a month or more in jail awaiting a trial. "Not Guilty" — in a society with a presumption of innocence — is the same as innocent. If we find you Not Guilty, and you spent 3 months in jail, the State should repair you for that harm. "Charges Dropped" after a brief-arrest is not something I would punish. "Charges Dropped" after someone sat in jail for 2 months awaiting a trial? Pay up.
- xyzzyz 11y agoIn both of the cases you mention (someone was found guilty or charges were dropped) it seems pretty obvious that the arrest was wrongful, and a jailed person should be compensated. Can you come up with non-trivial example?
- beat 11y agoGuilty verdicts are difficult in American law. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is hard to achieve, even when the accused is guilty. "Probable cause" is all that is needed for arrest, a much lower standard.
- xyzzyz 11y agoIf there's a probable cause for someone to be arrested, but they're not convicted after all, they _are_ innocent. I still don't understand what's tricky about that.