6 ms·

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 al

by 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.
EvilEndures 8y ago
Prosecutors already only take cases they think they can win via plea bargain. Part of why convinction rates are so high is Prosecutors ignore any case they might lose or the defendant can afford a quality lawyer who might cast reasonable doubt on the verdict. I doubt repayment for wrongful imprisonment would make that worse.
- CamTin 8y ago
  Prosecutors might only take those cases, but they're not the ones making arrests. Police are. Once you are already in jail then, under the proposed scheme, the prosecutor's options become 1) let you out (drop charges) and expose the public purse to wrongful imprisonment damages, 2) take it to trial and lose, also exposing the public purse to the same damages, 3) take it to trial and win, which is expensive but at least looks good for the prosecutor, or 4) plea you out to a lesser charge, preferably one that carries a penalty of at least as long in jail as you've already served, so as not to expose the public purse to those damages The last option is probably the best-looking one for a prosecutor. It's cheap, quick, and doesn't look bad for their bosses. I would think we would get more 4s and less 1s than the current system. 1s are good for the accused. 4s are very bad, but not the worst. Again, I'm not saying reform is impossible, just playing devil's advocate on this particular proposal.
  - athenot 8y ago
    > 1) let you out (drop charges) and expose the public purse to wrongful imprisonment damages, > 2) take it to trial and lose, also exposing the public purse to the same damages, If a doctor makes a mistake, he or she is liable (in addition to the hospital). In the case of wrongful imprisonment, there should be exposed liability for the officers too. They are the ones who make the judgement call to arrest someone based on the information they have and the threat they perceive. If they fail at that and end up causing a net harm to individuals, they should be bearing (within reasonable limits) responsibility for that.
    - knome 8y ago
      But it takes more than a simple mistake to be able to bring a suit against a doctor, doesn't it? If they misdiagnose, but reasonably, or if complications occur but the doctor was following reasonable medical methods, then they aren't liable, no? If the police get a call that someone is being robbed, then pick someone up that matches the description that was jogging along a block away, the person may turn out to just be someone somewhat similar that was jogging. Imposing a penalty on the officers, department, prosecutors, etc for failing to convict this innocent person doesn't seem like something that would particularly improve the course of justice. Certainly it would be an unfortunate situation, but I'm not sure it should be something actionable without showing the arrest itself was intended to harass them, rather than being a case of reasonable mistaken identity.
jdavis703 8y ago
In the U.S. prosecutors are generally elected officials. Their bosses are the voters. If the voters get tired of paying for false imprisonment fees they can elect a smarter prosecutor.
- CamTin 8y ago
  The actual prosecutor/district attorney often is, but they all have lawyers working for them, except in the tiniest jurisdictions. U.S. Jurisdictions also often have elected judges, so some of the same pressures would apply to them.
infogulch 8y ago
We're talking about bail here. Your comment assumes prosecutors must hold the accused in jail until trial. If the prosecutor is worried about paying out wrongful imprisonment compensation, just don't hold them in jail for 6 months while their trial is waiting (by setting bail low enough for them to pay it). Right now the equation for deciding whether to hold someone in jail is entirely weighted to indiscriminately holding them for an indefinite amount of time. Why? Because it has zero impact on the state. The state finds it a little more convenient to hold them until trial (risk of runaway etc) so they do it for any minuscule reason while the life of the accused is thoroughly fucked. Wrongful imprisonment compensation re-balances that equation. Now when setting bail instead of only considering runaway risk, they also have to consider the strength of the evidence and severity of the crime and balance it against the risk of losing the case and having to pay out compensation. This is still a little weighted towards the state but is much less one-sided than the current system.
jessaustin 8y ago
Whence does this idea spring, that prosecutors are "under pressure"? I can't think of a single more conspicuously impune position in our society. There are lots of ethical prosecutors, but there are also lots of prosecutors who have destroyed innocent lives for their personal political gain. Maybe the latter group have to hang their heads in private prosecutor meetings, but from the public's perspective they are treated the same as the ethical prosecutors.

by CamTin 8y ago

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.

EvilEndures 8y ago

Prosecutors already only take cases they think they can win via plea bargain. Part of why convinction rates are so high is Prosecutors ignore any case they might lose or the defendant can afford a quality lawyer who might cast reasonable doubt on the verdict. I doubt repayment for wrongful imprisonment would make that worse.

CamTin 8y ago
Prosecutors might only take those cases, but they're not the ones making arrests. Police are. Once you are already in jail then, under the proposed scheme, the prosecutor's options become 1) let you out (drop charges) and expose the public purse to wrongful imprisonment damages, 2) take it to trial and lose, also exposing the public purse to the same damages, 3) take it to trial and win, which is expensive but at least looks good for the prosecutor, or 4) plea you out to a lesser charge, preferably one that carries a penalty of at least as long in jail as you've already served, so as not to expose the public purse to those damages The last option is probably the best-looking one for a prosecutor. It's cheap, quick, and doesn't look bad for their bosses. I would think we would get more 4s and less 1s than the current system. 1s are good for the accused. 4s are very bad, but not the worst. Again, I'm not saying reform is impossible, just playing devil's advocate on this particular proposal.
- athenot 8y ago
  > 1) let you out (drop charges) and expose the public purse to wrongful imprisonment damages, > 2) take it to trial and lose, also exposing the public purse to the same damages, If a doctor makes a mistake, he or she is liable (in addition to the hospital). In the case of wrongful imprisonment, there should be exposed liability for the officers too. They are the ones who make the judgement call to arrest someone based on the information they have and the threat they perceive. If they fail at that and end up causing a net harm to individuals, they should be bearing (within reasonable limits) responsibility for that.
  - knome 8y ago
    But it takes more than a simple mistake to be able to bring a suit against a doctor, doesn't it? If they misdiagnose, but reasonably, or if complications occur but the doctor was following reasonable medical methods, then they aren't liable, no? If the police get a call that someone is being robbed, then pick someone up that matches the description that was jogging along a block away, the person may turn out to just be someone somewhat similar that was jogging. Imposing a penalty on the officers, department, prosecutors, etc for failing to convict this innocent person doesn't seem like something that would particularly improve the course of justice. Certainly it would be an unfortunate situation, but I'm not sure it should be something actionable without showing the arrest itself was intended to harass them, rather than being a case of reasonable mistaken identity.

jdavis703 8y ago

In the U.S. prosecutors are generally elected officials. Their bosses are the voters. If the voters get tired of paying for false imprisonment fees they can elect a smarter prosecutor.

CamTin 8y ago
The actual prosecutor/district attorney often is, but they all have lawyers working for them, except in the tiniest jurisdictions. U.S. Jurisdictions also often have elected judges, so some of the same pressures would apply to them.

infogulch 8y ago

We're talking about bail here. Your comment assumes prosecutors must hold the accused in jail until trial. If the prosecutor is worried about paying out wrongful imprisonment compensation, just don't hold them in jail for 6 months while their trial is waiting (by setting bail low enough for them to pay it). Right now the equation for deciding whether to hold someone in jail is entirely weighted to indiscriminately holding them for an indefinite amount of time. Why? Because it has zero impact on the state. The state finds it a little more convenient to hold them until trial (risk of runaway etc) so they do it for any minuscule reason while the life of the accused is thoroughly fucked. Wrongful imprisonment compensation re-balances that equation. Now when setting bail instead of only considering runaway risk, they also have to consider the strength of the evidence and severity of the crime and balance it against the risk of losing the case and having to pay out compensation. This is still a little weighted towards the state but is much less one-sided than the current system.

jessaustin 8y ago

Whence does this idea spring, that prosecutors are "under pressure"? I can't think of a single more conspicuously impune position in our society. There are lots of ethical prosecutors, but there are also lots of prosecutors who have destroyed innocent lives for their personal political gain. Maybe the latter group have to hang their heads in private prosecutor meetings, but from the public's perspective they are treated the same as the ethical prosecutors.