4 ms·

They are paying out roughly 150k per prosecution. That seems low if most of those resulted in fines and jail time. Does anyone have a source for data on the out

They are paying out roughly 150k per prosecution. That seems low if most of those resulted in fines and jail time. Does anyone have a source for data on the outcomes of these cases? (If pressed on “seems low” I couldn’t exactly say, but if ten million is the actuarial value of life then every year of adult life in prison should be worth at least 175k, on top of the difficulties of enduring prosecution and career and reputation being harmed.)

gpderetta 3y ago
Andrew Malkinson was wrongly convicted and spent 17 years in a UK jail. He is likely to eventually get less than £1M compensation and that's after the government scraped the rule that "board and lodge" would be subtracted from the compensation. edit: accidentally a word.
- 1123581321 3y ago
  17 years (missing a word.) Link for those unfamiliar like me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_conviction_of_Andrew_Malkinson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_conviction_of_Andrew_... That seems grossly unfair. Based on what I'm musing, at bare minimum, 3 million would be appropriate.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    What's a good rationale for any particular sum? I mean, for starters you can just calculate average lifetime earnings and subtract expected earnings of the person over the remainder of their lifespan, then add an amount per year in prison roughly corresponding to the QALY value of prison vs normal life... But is there anything else you might add on? I expect the above calculation to only arrive at about a million for a country like the UK (which is less rich than the US and has less bad prisons).
    - lamontcg 3y ago
      Needs a compound annual growth rate, plus there's lost opportunity costs.
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      > I mean, for starters you can just calculate average lifetime earnings and subtract expected earnings of the person over the remainder of their lifespan, then add an amount per year in prison roughly corresponding to the QALY value of prison vs normal life... I would at least double, or triple it. He lost his life outside his work and earnings. He wasn't in prison for only 8h/day.
      - concordDance 3y ago
        That's what the QALY cost would be about. You probably don't want to give out much more than the cost of a QALY in your health system...
timthorn 3y ago
It's an immediate 150k payment, followed by a further settlement figure. I think that's a choice between either 600k without question, or an investigation to assess actual loss.
- varispeed 3y ago
  > or an investigation to assess actual loss. Which sounds like a poor taste joke given what led to this (poor investigation or lack thereof)
  - mytailorisrich 3y ago
    It is often trying to find any ways to pinch pennies, indeed. A recent case made the news and prompted a change of the rules [1]. Until last year they deducted "living costs" from compensation for wrongful imprisonment because while a person is in jail they don't have to pay for food and housing, thereby saving money... [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66417103 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66417103
  - timthorn 3y ago
    That's why there is an option of a no investigation settlement. But if that were the only option, postmasters who felt that it didn't compensate them adequately would have reason to complain.

gpderetta 3y ago

Andrew Malkinson was wrongly convicted and spent 17 years in a UK jail. He is likely to eventually get less than £1M compensation and that's after the government scraped the rule that "board and lodge" would be subtracted from the compensation. edit: accidentally a word.

1123581321 3y ago
17 years (missing a word.) Link for those unfamiliar like me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_conviction_of_Andrew_Malkinson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_conviction_of_Andrew_... That seems grossly unfair. Based on what I'm musing, at bare minimum, 3 million would be appropriate.
- concordDance 3y ago
  What's a good rationale for any particular sum? I mean, for starters you can just calculate average lifetime earnings and subtract expected earnings of the person over the remainder of their lifespan, then add an amount per year in prison roughly corresponding to the QALY value of prison vs normal life... But is there anything else you might add on? I expect the above calculation to only arrive at about a million for a country like the UK (which is less rich than the US and has less bad prisons).
  - lamontcg 3y ago
    Needs a compound annual growth rate, plus there's lost opportunity costs.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    > I mean, for starters you can just calculate average lifetime earnings and subtract expected earnings of the person over the remainder of their lifespan, then add an amount per year in prison roughly corresponding to the QALY value of prison vs normal life... I would at least double, or triple it. He lost his life outside his work and earnings. He wasn't in prison for only 8h/day.
    - concordDance 3y ago
      That's what the QALY cost would be about. You probably don't want to give out much more than the cost of a QALY in your health system...

timthorn 3y ago

It's an immediate 150k payment, followed by a further settlement figure. I think that's a choice between either 600k without question, or an investigation to assess actual loss.

varispeed 3y ago
> or an investigation to assess actual loss. Which sounds like a poor taste joke given what led to this (poor investigation or lack thereof)
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  It is often trying to find any ways to pinch pennies, indeed. A recent case made the news and prompted a change of the rules [1]. Until last year they deducted "living costs" from compensation for wrongful imprisonment because while a person is in jail they don't have to pay for food and housing, thereby saving money... [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66417103 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66417103
- timthorn 3y ago
  That's why there is an option of a no investigation settlement. But if that were the only option, postmasters who felt that it didn't compensate them adequately would have reason to complain.