7 ms·

Is it possible to get compensation for wrongful imprisonment in the US? I know it is in Denmark. The logic being that it shouldn't be 'free' for the state to

by Svip 8y ago

Is it possible to get compensation for wrongful imprisonment in the US? I know it is in Denmark. The logic being that it shouldn't be 'free' for the state to imprison someone wrongfully. In Denmark, you seek compensation after the fact. The exact compensation will depend on several variables, so I cannot give an exact figure. But I did find a case where a man was wrongfully imprisoned for five months, and got 141,000 DKK (~22,000 USD) in compensation. Although, the case noted he had sought 500,000 DKK in compensation.

DanielBMarkham 8y ago
It is but it is extremely rare. These are systemic problems, caused by the construction of the system itself and not due to bad actors. One problem is to have a successful suit against wrongful imprisonment, you have to prove intent. If somebody accidentally imprisoned you acting in good faith, the idea is that people make mistakes. There is automatic protection built into the system to allow prosecutors and LE to do their jobs. If there wasn't intent but the job they did was sloppy, it becomes a very grey area because then you have to define "sloppy". Everybody's sloppy to some degree or another, so the courts have set a high bar here (IANAL, just what I've read). The second problem is that laws and punishments are set in isolation, as if they were dealing with an ideal citizen who just broke one law. If you've got a job, a car, and savings and then you forget to pay your car insurance, a hefty fine isn't a big deal. If, however, you're poor and have to drive without insurance just to have a job and eat, then the laws were not set up with you in mind. It's not malice by one person that causes this. It's apathy among dozens of people all with different slices of the problem. It's not clear who would be the person responsible or who would have the supervisory authority over all of these people to prevent it even if the system were in place to find restitution.
- thechao 8y ago
  I understand the situation as described. I do feel that many Americans (including myself) would be happier without intent: the imprisonment of a free person is a fundamental violation of constitutional rights and, regardless of intent, is a wrong, which should lead to compensation.
  - hvidgaard 8y ago
    That would be a fair take on it. If you wrongfully imprison anyone, they get compensation. If all evidence points to them, but they was found not guilty, then they were wrongfully imprisoned and the intent and "why" doesn't really matter to that person.
    - CamTin 8y ago
      This has its own potential problems. Prosecutors might be under even more pressure to get convictions or plea bargains, since the alternative, if somebody is already arrested and awaiting trial, is that their bosses (ultimately elected officials) have to shell out public money for a wrongful imprisonment case. Not saying the idea doesn't have merit, but all the moving parts and bizarre incentives of this system make it very hard to make adjustments without having 2nd or 3rd order effects that may be even worse than what we have.
      - refurb 8y ago
        Being held in jail prior to a decision of guilty/not guilty wouldn’t be wrongful imprisonment.
        bdhess 8y ago
        Why not? How can this thread make sense in the context of the article otherwise?
        refurb 8y ago
        Based on the article, I'd say the problem is the fact it took 6 months for the court to actually hear the case. People have a right to due process.
        mannykannot 8y ago
        It is not that straightforward in the US, as the issue is really whether pre-trial detention is being used as a way to circumvent the speedy trial clause of the 6th. amendment.
- deckiedan 8y ago
  If the system is broken/to blame, then the system should be sued. What if the state had to pay compensation in cases of "honest" mistakes? Then the state would start having to try harder to not let innocents get imprisoned.
  - dustingetz 8y ago
    Read 48 Laws of Power to understand why it doesn't work like that. The constitution, checks and balances, regulations etc are an attempt to engineer the natural forces of power into more productive directions, but, "there are no hard lines in nature", and all attempts to engineer hard lines will show strain at the limits, for example this square wave is actually a sum of curves: https://archive.cnx.org/resources/0d187381962fb659307c2847763ed0cb374827f2/fourier4.png https://archive.cnx.org/resources/0d187381962fb659307c284776... "A would-be reformer who wants to improve social welfare by changing people's behavior to a better equilibrium must take care to identify a social plan that is in fact a Nash equilibrium, so that nobody can profit by unilaterally deviating from the plan." Meyerson – full quote here: http://www.dustingetz.com/:web-3.0/ http://www.dustingetz.com/:web-3.0/
- wongarsu 8y ago
  Establishing guilt and intent doesn't seem like a good approach here, or at least it shouldn't be the usual approach. Wrongful imprisonment should trigger an automatic payout from the institution imprisoning you. Then allow a court case to establish if the case deserves a higher than normal payout because of the specific circumstances. If these payouts are large enough they create pressure to both solve systematic problems and to punish individuals who cause abnormally high rates of wrongful imprisonment.
  - testvox 8y ago
    Or it motivates institutions to never find anyone to be wrongly imprisoned.
- rayiner 8y ago
  EDIT: Since OP was apparently talking about pre-conviction jailing, my comment was non-responsive to his point, and likely yours as well.
  - bdhess 8y ago
    Your information/links are about the wrongly convicted, but TFA is about accusals.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      But OP’s question is about “wrongful imprisonment.”
      - zazen 8y ago
        OP does use the word "imprisonment", but I think it's possible he's actually asking about pre-trial incarceration. OP says he's from Europe, and a lot of countries don't have the jail/prison distinction as in the USA.
        Svip 8y ago
        We do actually (»varetægtsfængslet« in Danish), but I forgot the appropriate term in English. I thought given the context that we were talking about bails, I didn't have to be specific.
        rayiner 8y ago
        Ah ok. I was confused by your question because while the distinction between pre-conviction "jail" and post-conviction "prison" is not always followed in English, "wrongful imprisonment" as a phrase almost always refers to wrongful conviction + imprisonment.
        tialaramex 8y ago
        I don't know the phrase "Wrongful imprisonment" but I'd assumed "Unlawful imprisonment" which is a crime and I'd associate it not with people who were wrongly _convicted_ because their conviction means imprisoning them was lawful, rather I'd associate it with situations where someone's freedom is taken away by some process other than the due process of law. If you're wrongly convicted the conviction must be overturned, whereupon you're innocent and will be freed by normal operation of the law (assuming you didn't also commit some other crime for which you're imprisoned) As example of what I'd think of as "unlawful imprisonment" there are problems in the UK with wives brought from countries where women, especially poor women, aren't treated very well - who are sometimes basically used as household slaves. The law against unlawful imprisonment doesn't require that they be chained up or in a locked room or anything, even a strong psychological coercion to remain ("You are my wife! You mustn't leave the home without my express permission") could be enough to make this unlawful. Or you'll sometimes get people taking the law into their own hands, somebody catches a shoplifter and decides to put him in the walk-in fridge to "teach him a lesson" - that sort of thing. Again, that's a crime.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  One problem is to have a successful suit against wrongful imprisonment, you have to prove intent. That's not true at all. Who told you that? Wrongful imprisonment suits generally depend on the state's laws. Some states provide for damages, some (mostly in the East/South) do not. Intent of the prosecutor or police is irrelevant--what matters is that the person wrongfully accused has been shown not to have committed the crime. Most defendants that win wrongful imprisonment settlements were generally tried by prosecutors utterly convinced that they defendants had actually committed the crime, with no malicious intent.
candiodari 8y ago
These sites tells you all one needs to know about government/police accountability in Denmark. A few examples: Several people died, about 10 years ago, between being arrested and arriving in prison. They were entirely healthy before, and showed signs of getting severely beaten. The state refused to even investigate the police officers involved, and none have received any punishment (or even had their names released). Needless to say, and I'm sure completely coincidentally, a judge ruled the "lack of perpetrators" (hah!) prevents the state from getting sued from any wrongdoing. The Danish government abducts children based on the say-so of a single government employee that isn't even a psychologist (this is policy), then has on several occasions the police beat up parents that attempt to file a complaint. The Danish government steals Jewellery of immigrants, and has that practice as a policy (there is no other valid word for the practice, despite that it's "legal". It's stealing. No question whatsoever) Denmark police officers beat up refugees being deported, then brag about it on social media. Needless to say: the state strongly objects to any punishment for these police officers. Let's just not mention what the Danish state did to Inuit Indians in Greenland, on many, many occassions, including recently. https://sites.google.com/site/thedanishtrap/best-of-nw-mom https://sites.google.com/site/thedanishtrap/best-of-nw-mom https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/denmark-jewellery-law-migrants-refugees-asylum-seekers-unhcr-united-nations-a7113056.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/denmark-jewe... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/world/europe/denmark-refugees-shelter-abuse.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/world/europe/denmark-refu... The thing that you need to understand is that when push comes to shove, Denmark legitimately counts as a country where "this doesn't happen". Where the police behaves really well. That says a lot about how police forces and governments behave, irrespective of where they are and how they legitimize themselves. Denmark may not be the best country on police behavior, but it's probably in the top-10. Every police force, every government, will abuse any power they have over people for the dumbest of reasons, every time, again and again and again. They must not be given one iota more power than absolutely necessary and need to be thoroughly checked at every turn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality
- jchb 8y ago
  > The Danish government steals Jewellery of immigrants, and has that practice as a policy Not exactly any immigrant. Only those that apply for asylum and need the state to provide them with accommodation and living expenses. Further, if they do not consent to the confiscation, the police must refer it to a court, and the court may decide to return the valuables. Also, when/if the asylum application is successful and they become self-sufficient, any remains of the confiscated valuables are returned.
charlesdm 8y ago
$22,000 is a pittance however, for five months of wrongful imprisonment (in my view)
- dionidium 8y ago
  Sadly, it's considerably more than most of them would have earned in five months on the outside.
  - kyoob 8y ago
    Most of who? Danes?
    - dionidium 8y ago
      Ack, sorry for being so unclear. I was thinking of the American underclasses most likely to be caught up in local jails and unable to afford bail.
      - test6554 8y ago
        Yea, if you could get $22,000 just for being detained in the US, there would be whole professions dedicated to setting people up for crimes while also leaving enough evidence of their innocence to get them acquitted.
        dec0dedab0de 8y ago
        There would also be a push to get people through the system faster.
        lghh 8y ago
        I would rather have a system that people not in a position of power can abuse (setting up systems to get intentional "wrongful convictions") than one where people in power can abuse it (the current bail and prison system).
cimmanom 8y ago
Being held before trial is pretty much never interpreted as wrongful imprisonment, even if the suspect is acquitted.
- Svip 8y ago
  Well, in most cases people don't get taken into custody (I believe that is the proper term?), because the police does not deem them a security risk until their trial commences. But if the police decides to take you into custody (effectively imprisoning you before the verdict), and you are acquitted, you are entitled to compensation in Denmark. The thinking is that the state should not be able to do it on a whim without consequence of their decisions.
- jklinger410 8y ago
  Being detained is basically considered just a "pain in the ass" by the courts, although it ruins the lives of many. This is one of the many ways that privilege infects our systems.
pasbesoin 8y ago
In addition to other comments, about how difficult it is and who does and doesn't qualify, it's also worth noting that lawmakers keep introducing laws seeking to cap such compensation. A few high payouts, and suddenly there's a push to... "protect taxpayers". Basically, once again highlighting how, in the U.S., "justice" is really about money.

by Svip 8y ago

DanielBMarkham 8y ago

It is but it is extremely rare. These are systemic problems, caused by the construction of the system itself and not due to bad actors. One problem is to have a successful suit against wrongful imprisonment, you have to prove intent. If somebody accidentally imprisoned you acting in good faith, the idea is that people make mistakes. There is automatic protection built into the system to allow prosecutors and LE to do their jobs. If there wasn't intent but the job they did was sloppy, it becomes a very grey area because then you have to define "sloppy". Everybody's sloppy to some degree or another, so the courts have set a high bar here (IANAL, just what I've read). The second problem is that laws and punishments are set in isolation, as if they were dealing with an ideal citizen who just broke one law. If you've got a job, a car, and savings and then you forget to pay your car insurance, a hefty fine isn't a big deal. If, however, you're poor and have to drive without insurance just to have a job and eat, then the laws were not set up with you in mind. It's not malice by one person that causes this. It's apathy among dozens of people all with different slices of the problem. It's not clear who would be the person responsible or who would have the supervisory authority over all of these people to prevent it even if the system were in place to find restitution.

thechao 8y ago
I understand the situation as described. I do feel that many Americans (including myself) would be happier without intent: the imprisonment of a free person is a fundamental violation of constitutional rights and, regardless of intent, is a wrong, which should lead to compensation.
- hvidgaard 8y ago
  That would be a fair take on it. If you wrongfully imprison anyone, they get compensation. If all evidence points to them, but they was found not guilty, then they were wrongfully imprisoned and the intent and "why" doesn't really matter to that person.
  - CamTin 8y ago
    This has its own potential problems. Prosecutors might be under even more pressure to get convictions or plea bargains, since the alternative, if somebody is already arrested and awaiting trial, is that their bosses (ultimately elected officials) have to shell out public money for a wrongful imprisonment case. Not saying the idea doesn't have merit, but all the moving parts and bizarre incentives of this system make it very hard to make adjustments without having 2nd or 3rd order effects that may be even worse than what we have.
    - refurb 8y ago
      Being held in jail prior to a decision of guilty/not guilty wouldn’t be wrongful imprisonment.
      - bdhess 8y ago
        Why not? How can this thread make sense in the context of the article otherwise?
        refurb 8y ago
        Based on the article, I'd say the problem is the fact it took 6 months for the court to actually hear the case. People have a right to due process.
      - mannykannot 8y ago
        It is not that straightforward in the US, as the issue is really whether pre-trial detention is being used as a way to circumvent the speedy trial clause of the 6th. amendment.
deckiedan 8y ago
If the system is broken/to blame, then the system should be sued. What if the state had to pay compensation in cases of "honest" mistakes? Then the state would start having to try harder to not let innocents get imprisoned.
- dustingetz 8y ago
  Read 48 Laws of Power to understand why it doesn't work like that. The constitution, checks and balances, regulations etc are an attempt to engineer the natural forces of power into more productive directions, but, "there are no hard lines in nature", and all attempts to engineer hard lines will show strain at the limits, for example this square wave is actually a sum of curves: https://archive.cnx.org/resources/0d187381962fb659307c2847763ed0cb374827f2/fourier4.png https://archive.cnx.org/resources/0d187381962fb659307c284776... "A would-be reformer who wants to improve social welfare by changing people's behavior to a better equilibrium must take care to identify a social plan that is in fact a Nash equilibrium, so that nobody can profit by unilaterally deviating from the plan." Meyerson – full quote here: http://www.dustingetz.com/:web-3.0/ http://www.dustingetz.com/:web-3.0/
wongarsu 8y ago
Establishing guilt and intent doesn't seem like a good approach here, or at least it shouldn't be the usual approach. Wrongful imprisonment should trigger an automatic payout from the institution imprisoning you. Then allow a court case to establish if the case deserves a higher than normal payout because of the specific circumstances. If these payouts are large enough they create pressure to both solve systematic problems and to punish individuals who cause abnormally high rates of wrongful imprisonment.
- testvox 8y ago
  Or it motivates institutions to never find anyone to be wrongly imprisoned.
rayiner 8y ago
EDIT: Since OP was apparently talking about pre-conviction jailing, my comment was non-responsive to his point, and likely yours as well.
- bdhess 8y ago
  Your information/links are about the wrongly convicted, but TFA is about accusals.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    But OP’s question is about “wrongful imprisonment.”
    - zazen 8y ago
      OP does use the word "imprisonment", but I think it's possible he's actually asking about pre-trial incarceration. OP says he's from Europe, and a lot of countries don't have the jail/prison distinction as in the USA.
      - Svip 8y ago
        We do actually (»varetægtsfængslet« in Danish), but I forgot the appropriate term in English. I thought given the context that we were talking about bails, I didn't have to be specific.
        rayiner 8y ago
        Ah ok. I was confused by your question because while the distinction between pre-conviction "jail" and post-conviction "prison" is not always followed in English, "wrongful imprisonment" as a phrase almost always refers to wrongful conviction + imprisonment.
        tialaramex 8y ago
        I don't know the phrase "Wrongful imprisonment" but I'd assumed "Unlawful imprisonment" which is a crime and I'd associate it not with people who were wrongly _convicted_ because their conviction means imprisoning them was lawful, rather I'd associate it with situations where someone's freedom is taken away by some process other than the due process of law. If you're wrongly convicted the conviction must be overturned, whereupon you're innocent and will be freed by normal operation of the law (assuming you didn't also commit some other crime for which you're imprisoned) As example of what I'd think of as "unlawful imprisonment" there are problems in the UK with wives brought from countries where women, especially poor women, aren't treated very well - who are sometimes basically used as household slaves. The law against unlawful imprisonment doesn't require that they be chained up or in a locked room or anything, even a strong psychological coercion to remain ("You are my wife! You mustn't leave the home without my express permission") could be enough to make this unlawful. Or you'll sometimes get people taking the law into their own hands, somebody catches a shoplifter and decides to put him in the walk-in fridge to "teach him a lesson" - that sort of thing. Again, that's a crime.
gamblor956 8y ago
One problem is to have a successful suit against wrongful imprisonment, you have to prove intent. That's not true at all. Who told you that? Wrongful imprisonment suits generally depend on the state's laws. Some states provide for damages, some (mostly in the East/South) do not. Intent of the prosecutor or police is irrelevant--what matters is that the person wrongfully accused has been shown not to have committed the crime. Most defendants that win wrongful imprisonment settlements were generally tried by prosecutors utterly convinced that they defendants had actually committed the crime, with no malicious intent.

candiodari 8y ago

These sites tells you all one needs to know about government/police accountability in Denmark. A few examples: Several people died, about 10 years ago, between being arrested and arriving in prison. They were entirely healthy before, and showed signs of getting severely beaten. The state refused to even investigate the police officers involved, and none have received any punishment (or even had their names released). Needless to say, and I'm sure completely coincidentally, a judge ruled the "lack of perpetrators" (hah!) prevents the state from getting sued from any wrongdoing. The Danish government abducts children based on the say-so of a single government employee that isn't even a psychologist (this is policy), then has on several occasions the police beat up parents that attempt to file a complaint. The Danish government steals Jewellery of immigrants, and has that practice as a policy (there is no other valid word for the practice, despite that it's "legal". It's stealing. No question whatsoever) Denmark police officers beat up refugees being deported, then brag about it on social media. Needless to say: the state strongly objects to any punishment for these police officers. Let's just not mention what the Danish state did to Inuit Indians in Greenland, on many, many occassions, including recently. https://sites.google.com/site/thedanishtrap/best-of-nw-mom https://sites.google.com/site/thedanishtrap/best-of-nw-mom https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/denmark-jewellery-law-migrants-refugees-asylum-seekers-unhcr-united-nations-a7113056.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/denmark-jewe... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/world/europe/denmark-refugees-shelter-abuse.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/world/europe/denmark-refu... The thing that you need to understand is that when push comes to shove, Denmark legitimately counts as a country where "this doesn't happen". Where the police behaves really well. That says a lot about how police forces and governments behave, irrespective of where they are and how they legitimize themselves. Denmark may not be the best country on police behavior, but it's probably in the top-10. Every police force, every government, will abuse any power they have over people for the dumbest of reasons, every time, again and again and again. They must not be given one iota more power than absolutely necessary and need to be thoroughly checked at every turn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality

jchb 8y ago
> The Danish government steals Jewellery of immigrants, and has that practice as a policy Not exactly any immigrant. Only those that apply for asylum and need the state to provide them with accommodation and living expenses. Further, if they do not consent to the confiscation, the police must refer it to a court, and the court may decide to return the valuables. Also, when/if the asylum application is successful and they become self-sufficient, any remains of the confiscated valuables are returned.

charlesdm 8y ago

$22,000 is a pittance however, for five months of wrongful imprisonment (in my view)

dionidium 8y ago
Sadly, it's considerably more than most of them would have earned in five months on the outside.
- kyoob 8y ago
  Most of who? Danes?
  - dionidium 8y ago
    Ack, sorry for being so unclear. I was thinking of the American underclasses most likely to be caught up in local jails and unable to afford bail.
    - test6554 8y ago
      Yea, if you could get $22,000 just for being detained in the US, there would be whole professions dedicated to setting people up for crimes while also leaving enough evidence of their innocence to get them acquitted.
      - dec0dedab0de 8y ago
        There would also be a push to get people through the system faster.
      - lghh 8y ago
        I would rather have a system that people not in a position of power can abuse (setting up systems to get intentional "wrongful convictions") than one where people in power can abuse it (the current bail and prison system).

cimmanom 8y ago

Being held before trial is pretty much never interpreted as wrongful imprisonment, even if the suspect is acquitted.

Svip 8y ago
Well, in most cases people don't get taken into custody (I believe that is the proper term?), because the police does not deem them a security risk until their trial commences. But if the police decides to take you into custody (effectively imprisoning you before the verdict), and you are acquitted, you are entitled to compensation in Denmark. The thinking is that the state should not be able to do it on a whim without consequence of their decisions.
jklinger410 8y ago
Being detained is basically considered just a "pain in the ass" by the courts, although it ruins the lives of many. This is one of the many ways that privilege infects our systems.

pasbesoin 8y ago

In addition to other comments, about how difficult it is and who does and doesn't qualify, it's also worth noting that lawmakers keep introducing laws seeking to cap such compensation. A few high payouts, and suddenly there's a push to... "protect taxpayers". Basically, once again highlighting how, in the U.S., "justice" is really about money.