7 ms·

Interesting. While I live in the UK, I had never really thought about the link between wealth and privacy, and the potential for the state to discriminate in th

Interesting. While I live in the UK, I had never really thought about the link between wealth and privacy, and the potential for the state to discriminate in this way. A thought-provoking read. Thanks for sharing

gambiting 8y ago
I live in the UK too and every day I am grateful we don't have the absolutely idiotic concept of paid bail - the police can only hold you for 48 hours without charging you with a crime, and then you have to be tried within 51 days or released on unconditional bail, so idiotic situation like the one here where someone in the article was held for 3 years without a trial can't happen. But yes, having read the article it just reinforces the impression I have of USA - that it's the "land of the free but only if you have money"
- azeotropic 8y ago
  So they can hold you for 51 days and you just have to sit in jail until your trial?
  - gambiting 8y ago
    No, you can be released on conditional bail, but it cannot be tied to money. Commonly the conditions include reporting to the police station every day, not contacting certain people, staying at home except for certain hours etc.
    - troupe 8y ago
      In the US, bail is used to make sure people show up for their court date. How does this work in the UK?
      - gambiting 8y ago
        If someone is a flight risk, they are not given any bail and just sit tight for those 51 days. But being given bail and not showing up to court results in far harsher sentence, so it's a shit game to play.
  - Fnoord 8y ago
    You do get reimbursed if you sat in jail for no reason. Right?
    - gambiting 8y ago
      Not for the time spent waiting for trial. You only get compensation if you were wrongly convicted.
      - Fnoord 8y ago
        So you can be waiting for trial, not get convicted (for whatever reason), and not get reimbursed for being wrongfully in jail?
        gambiting 8y ago
        Unfortunately, yes. It's the same in both US and UK. You can sue the state for loss of income/whatever, but those cases are not always successful - all they need to prove is that they had reasonable reason to keep you in jail, even if you were found innocent at the end.
        Fnoord 8y ago
        Thank you for the information. Do you know how this works in the rest of the world?
        tialaramex 8y ago
        Roughly yes. The rationale is that you were not "wrongfully" in jail. You were held in the jail because prosecutors believed you'd be found guilty of a crime (which you subsequently were found innocent of) and the court believed that you were either too dangerous or too likely to abscond if you weren't held against your will. In principle if you can show that these beliefs were unreasonable (not just wrong, but not even reasonable beliefs for the court officials to hold) you might be able to get somewhere, but I suspect a decent lawyer would tell you that this bar is too high. Conviction rate for people who go to trial in the UK is very high, because the "Full Code Test" for prosecutors tells them to never prosecute people unless they're convinced the evidence they have will support a conviction for each charge they specify.
- yardie 8y ago
  In the US you have a right to a speedy trial. Most sign away this right while being processed. The excuse given was the lawyers needed time to prepare for trial.
- cortic 8y ago
  I'm glad too, but some of your numbers are a bit off; https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/how-long-you-can-be-held-in-custody https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/how-long-you-can-be-... Also its worth noting our anti-terror laws seem to allow indefinite detention without charge. And ant-immigration laws allow for long (months even years) detention of migrants, without even suspicion of a crime.
  - PJDK 8y ago
    According to your link, the longest you can be held without charge is 14 days under the terrorism act. The longest ever proposed was 90 days (proposed in 2006), and the longest implemented was 28 days (between 2006 - 2011). https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/countering-terrorism/extended-pre-charge-detention https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/counterin...
    - cortic 8y ago
      Terrorism Act 2000 (which was partially ruled unlawful by the House of Lords for what its worth) allows for theoretically infinite extensions to the detention period with only a police superintendent needed to sign off on it. as for imigration 'Just over one fifth of immigration detainees are held for at least two months' : https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-detention-in-the-uk/ https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/im...
      - PJDK 8y ago
        Have you got a source on that part of the terrorism act, it's not something I've heard of.
        cortic 8y ago
        http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/contents http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/contents more specifically section 29, 1, (d): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/8/part/III http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/8/part/... Though F1 seems to have been edited since i last looked.. still its in theory, unlimited detention without trial. There is also the Terrorism Act 2006, which i think extended the standard limit to 26 days.. Not sure if this was ever repealed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2006
- rahimnathwani 8y ago
  If you're interested in how the UK criminal justice system has its own set of problems and biased outcomes, you might enjoy (or at least be interested by) this book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0753GBC5Z https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0753GBC5Z
- microcolonel 8y ago
  > But yes, having read the article it just reinforces the impression I have of USA - that it's the "land of the free but only if you have money" There is a difference between freedom and prosperity, but largely Americans have both. Almost everyone has money, in the way that most living people have food or have clothing: people tend to try to ensure this one way or another.

gambiting 8y ago

I live in the UK too and every day I am grateful we don't have the absolutely idiotic concept of paid bail - the police can only hold you for 48 hours without charging you with a crime, and then you have to be tried within 51 days or released on unconditional bail, so idiotic situation like the one here where someone in the article was held for 3 years without a trial can't happen. But yes, having read the article it just reinforces the impression I have of USA - that it's the "land of the free but only if you have money"

azeotropic 8y ago
So they can hold you for 51 days and you just have to sit in jail until your trial?
- gambiting 8y ago
  No, you can be released on conditional bail, but it cannot be tied to money. Commonly the conditions include reporting to the police station every day, not contacting certain people, staying at home except for certain hours etc.
  - troupe 8y ago
    In the US, bail is used to make sure people show up for their court date. How does this work in the UK?
    - gambiting 8y ago
      If someone is a flight risk, they are not given any bail and just sit tight for those 51 days. But being given bail and not showing up to court results in far harsher sentence, so it's a shit game to play.
- Fnoord 8y ago
  You do get reimbursed if you sat in jail for no reason. Right?
  - gambiting 8y ago
    Not for the time spent waiting for trial. You only get compensation if you were wrongly convicted.
    - Fnoord 8y ago
      So you can be waiting for trial, not get convicted (for whatever reason), and not get reimbursed for being wrongfully in jail?
      - gambiting 8y ago
        Unfortunately, yes. It's the same in both US and UK. You can sue the state for loss of income/whatever, but those cases are not always successful - all they need to prove is that they had reasonable reason to keep you in jail, even if you were found innocent at the end.
        Fnoord 8y ago
        Thank you for the information. Do you know how this works in the rest of the world?
      - tialaramex 8y ago
        Roughly yes. The rationale is that you were not "wrongfully" in jail. You were held in the jail because prosecutors believed you'd be found guilty of a crime (which you subsequently were found innocent of) and the court believed that you were either too dangerous or too likely to abscond if you weren't held against your will. In principle if you can show that these beliefs were unreasonable (not just wrong, but not even reasonable beliefs for the court officials to hold) you might be able to get somewhere, but I suspect a decent lawyer would tell you that this bar is too high. Conviction rate for people who go to trial in the UK is very high, because the "Full Code Test" for prosecutors tells them to never prosecute people unless they're convinced the evidence they have will support a conviction for each charge they specify.
yardie 8y ago
In the US you have a right to a speedy trial. Most sign away this right while being processed. The excuse given was the lawyers needed time to prepare for trial.
cortic 8y ago
I'm glad too, but some of your numbers are a bit off; https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/how-long-you-can-be-held-in-custody https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/how-long-you-can-be-... Also its worth noting our anti-terror laws seem to allow indefinite detention without charge. And ant-immigration laws allow for long (months even years) detention of migrants, without even suspicion of a crime.
- PJDK 8y ago
  According to your link, the longest you can be held without charge is 14 days under the terrorism act. The longest ever proposed was 90 days (proposed in 2006), and the longest implemented was 28 days (between 2006 - 2011). https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/countering-terrorism/extended-pre-charge-detention https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/counterin...
  - cortic 8y ago
    Terrorism Act 2000 (which was partially ruled unlawful by the House of Lords for what its worth) allows for theoretically infinite extensions to the detention period with only a police superintendent needed to sign off on it. as for imigration 'Just over one fifth of immigration detainees are held for at least two months' : https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-detention-in-the-uk/ https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/im...
    - PJDK 8y ago
      Have you got a source on that part of the terrorism act, it's not something I've heard of.
      - cortic 8y ago
        http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/contents http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/contents more specifically section 29, 1, (d): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/8/part/III http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/8/part/... Though F1 seems to have been edited since i last looked.. still its in theory, unlimited detention without trial. There is also the Terrorism Act 2006, which i think extended the standard limit to 26 days.. Not sure if this was ever repealed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2006
rahimnathwani 8y ago
If you're interested in how the UK criminal justice system has its own set of problems and biased outcomes, you might enjoy (or at least be interested by) this book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0753GBC5Z https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0753GBC5Z
microcolonel 8y ago
> But yes, having read the article it just reinforces the impression I have of USA - that it's the "land of the free but only if you have money" There is a difference between freedom and prosperity, but largely Americans have both. Almost everyone has money, in the way that most living people have food or have clothing: people tend to try to ensure this one way or another.