6 ms·

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 migh

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.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      But it takes more than a simple mistake to be able to bring a suit against a doctor, doesn't it? In USA, the courts are open for anyone's business. No misdiagnosis is required, merely an unhappy patient (or survivors) and an opportunistic lawyer. The time I said "your honor, we find for the defendant" as foreperson of a malpractice jury was surprisingly uplifting for me...
- scott_s 8y ago
  Not necessarily. We could decide that being in jail prior to seeing a judge or magistrate that sets bail does not count as wrongful imprisonment; it's the period of time during which the state has to decide if they really want to follow through on charging this individual, and if so, wether or not they want to take the risk of wrongful imprisonment. We could say that only time after a judge or magistrate has made the bail or no-bail decision would count as wrongful imprisonment were the individual found innocent. The time between arrest and bail hearing max out at a few days. Not great if you're innocent, but much different than the weeks to months before a trial.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    I don't see why any individual is expected to pay for this. Locking someone up has a cost, and it's done in the interest of the public, so I would think it is obvious the public should have to pay for it if they are innocent. If we want to build a town hall, we don't just take the next person that comes along and force them to build the thing that everyone then gets to benefit from--that's what taxes are for.
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    We couldn't do that in the US. Some police departments have an unwritten policy of arresting people late on a Friday, so that they can be held the maximum amount of time before getting an arraignment hearing, where the charges may be summarily dropped because they were bogus to begin with. If you decide such arrests cannot trigger compensation for false imprisonment, the practice will not only continue, but increase, as a form of legal harassment. I'd give up the first hour in jail for free. That's plenty of time to put together an argument justifying the arrest, given that the arresting officer should have already had a reason prior to making it, and being an hour late is usually not ruinous. Either the lateness is justified by the arrest, or the fact of the arrest itself eclipses the offense of the tardiness. What if there were a "speedy trial" clock? It ticks down faster (6x) between arrest and arraignment, when the accused is held in jail awaiting their initial hearing. It counts down more slowly (x/6) when the accused is released and preparing for trial. And it counts down at the baseline rate when the accused is arraigned and held in jail awaiting trial. The defense, and only the defense, can request that the time to trial be extended. If the case is dropped unilaterally, or the trial verdict is not guilty, the state is on the hook for the amount of time counted down off the trial clock. So if the cops arrest you on Friday at 5 PM for the express purpose of keeping you in jail for the maximum amount of time before seeing a judge or magistrate on Monday morning, they piss off the prosecutors, who counted down 2 weeks off their clock for the 2.5 days spent in jail awaiting the initial hearing. And if the judge denies release because the prosecutors claim the accused is a danger or flight risk, they have to back up that assertion by throwing more resources into the pending trial before the clock runs out. Maybe the clock allows 30 days for someone arraigned within hours and held without bail, and 180 days for someone released pending trial. If you don't want to bind up your court calendar, you release everyone who isn't dangerous, put extra effort into processing those held in jail pending trial--possibly preempting trials on lesser crimes--and try to make more deals when too many trials are running their clocks out at the same time. Prosecutors that lose too many cases to "failure to provide a speedy trial" motions and pay too many of the subsequent false imprisonment claims risk losing their jobs after the next election. The New York system has a similar clock, but they allow the prosecution to pause it by engaging in dubious and deceptive practices. Not a good model. The problem is that the prosecution side gets no negative feedback for egregiously failing to honor the rights of the accused. They don't get checked when they commit an obvious wrong. At the least, this would encourage more municipalities to have an on-call weekend magistrate.
- rflrob 8y ago
  Or 5) let you out on no cash bail, while still pursuing charges. I’m sympathetic to the no-cash bail movement, though I’ll admit that there are a lot of edge cases to worry about. Plus, it may unfairly distort the calculation of who truly is a risk to release if you combine it with the possibility of suing for wrongful imprisonment on a not guilty verdict.
- EvilEndures 8y ago
  > 1) let you out (drop charges) and expose the public purse to wrongful imprisonment damages, This isn't quite correct. They have the ability to hold you for 24 hours without formally arresting/imprisoning you. The prosecutor would have a 5th option (drop charges and release the person within the first 24 hours). That is more likely than #1 and #2. > Again, I'm not saying reform is impossible, just playing devil's advocate on this particular proposal. Understood but a 24 hour hold wouldn't be affected by this proposal as far as I'm aware.
white-flame 8y ago
And that's another facet of the penal system's practical bias against the poor.

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.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    But it takes more than a simple mistake to be able to bring a suit against a doctor, doesn't it? In USA, the courts are open for anyone's business. No misdiagnosis is required, merely an unhappy patient (or survivors) and an opportunistic lawyer. The time I said "your honor, we find for the defendant" as foreperson of a malpractice jury was surprisingly uplifting for me...
scott_s 8y ago
Not necessarily. We could decide that being in jail prior to seeing a judge or magistrate that sets bail does not count as wrongful imprisonment; it's the period of time during which the state has to decide if they really want to follow through on charging this individual, and if so, wether or not they want to take the risk of wrongful imprisonment. We could say that only time after a judge or magistrate has made the bail or no-bail decision would count as wrongful imprisonment were the individual found innocent. The time between arrest and bail hearing max out at a few days. Not great if you're innocent, but much different than the weeks to months before a trial.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  I don't see why any individual is expected to pay for this. Locking someone up has a cost, and it's done in the interest of the public, so I would think it is obvious the public should have to pay for it if they are innocent. If we want to build a town hall, we don't just take the next person that comes along and force them to build the thing that everyone then gets to benefit from--that's what taxes are for.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  We couldn't do that in the US. Some police departments have an unwritten policy of arresting people late on a Friday, so that they can be held the maximum amount of time before getting an arraignment hearing, where the charges may be summarily dropped because they were bogus to begin with. If you decide such arrests cannot trigger compensation for false imprisonment, the practice will not only continue, but increase, as a form of legal harassment. I'd give up the first hour in jail for free. That's plenty of time to put together an argument justifying the arrest, given that the arresting officer should have already had a reason prior to making it, and being an hour late is usually not ruinous. Either the lateness is justified by the arrest, or the fact of the arrest itself eclipses the offense of the tardiness. What if there were a "speedy trial" clock? It ticks down faster (6x) between arrest and arraignment, when the accused is held in jail awaiting their initial hearing. It counts down more slowly (x/6) when the accused is released and preparing for trial. And it counts down at the baseline rate when the accused is arraigned and held in jail awaiting trial. The defense, and only the defense, can request that the time to trial be extended. If the case is dropped unilaterally, or the trial verdict is not guilty, the state is on the hook for the amount of time counted down off the trial clock. So if the cops arrest you on Friday at 5 PM for the express purpose of keeping you in jail for the maximum amount of time before seeing a judge or magistrate on Monday morning, they piss off the prosecutors, who counted down 2 weeks off their clock for the 2.5 days spent in jail awaiting the initial hearing. And if the judge denies release because the prosecutors claim the accused is a danger or flight risk, they have to back up that assertion by throwing more resources into the pending trial before the clock runs out. Maybe the clock allows 30 days for someone arraigned within hours and held without bail, and 180 days for someone released pending trial. If you don't want to bind up your court calendar, you release everyone who isn't dangerous, put extra effort into processing those held in jail pending trial--possibly preempting trials on lesser crimes--and try to make more deals when too many trials are running their clocks out at the same time. Prosecutors that lose too many cases to "failure to provide a speedy trial" motions and pay too many of the subsequent false imprisonment claims risk losing their jobs after the next election. The New York system has a similar clock, but they allow the prosecution to pause it by engaging in dubious and deceptive practices. Not a good model. The problem is that the prosecution side gets no negative feedback for egregiously failing to honor the rights of the accused. They don't get checked when they commit an obvious wrong. At the least, this would encourage more municipalities to have an on-call weekend magistrate.
rflrob 8y ago
Or 5) let you out on no cash bail, while still pursuing charges. I’m sympathetic to the no-cash bail movement, though I’ll admit that there are a lot of edge cases to worry about. Plus, it may unfairly distort the calculation of who truly is a risk to release if you combine it with the possibility of suing for wrongful imprisonment on a not guilty verdict.
EvilEndures 8y ago
> 1) let you out (drop charges) and expose the public purse to wrongful imprisonment damages, This isn't quite correct. They have the ability to hold you for 24 hours without formally arresting/imprisoning you. The prosecutor would have a 5th option (drop charges and release the person within the first 24 hours). That is more likely than #1 and #2. > Again, I'm not saying reform is impossible, just playing devil's advocate on this particular proposal. Understood but a 24 hour hold wouldn't be affected by this proposal as far as I'm aware.

white-flame 8y ago

And that's another facet of the penal system's practical bias against the poor.