Cruelty or idiocy? Innocent prisoner to pay for lodging in prison

Remove all ads!

As a lawyer, I've never thought I'd live until this day. A victim of false accusation, not only put in prison for three years in a case in which the only evidence were the words of the "victim", receives a bill of Ł12.5K for board and lodging in prison.

From Daily Mail:

It's true that he didn't pay for his food, although it's cruel to charge him for it - especially if they don't charge true criminals exiting prison. Lodging is also idiotic since his family still paid the bills for the house in which he could have lived with them. Prison is not a hotel.

More juicy details:

Ergo they haven't even tested her in any way. No evidence of even as much as intercourse truly having taken place, forget any sample of his sperm or any genetic material. Nothing. Just words. What world do we live in?

Yup. Someone just can't admit the government can be wrong. What hubris.

Yup.

(link)

 

Well, I really don't know what to say. This has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

Out of curiosity, are criminals generally required to say "room and board" for time spent in jail in Britain? Or is this just levied against innocent people?

I'm sure there must be a rationelle behind this. But damned if I know what it is.

 

I had several reactions to this.
1) I feel sorry for the man and his family. Three years lost out of his life because of a mentally sick woman.
2) I laughed, not long and loud but a little bit. Tal is right. In a democracy we get the government we deserve.
3) Then the thought crossed my mine. Did he have a lawyer for his trial or was he so sure of being innocent that he represented himself?
4) If he had a lawyer what kind of defense did he put up? Didn't he question the lack of evidence of a crime actually taking place?

 

It seems only innocent people are charged that if they apply for compensation. The compensation is diminished by the sum of board and lodging, perhaps because they believe it to be some good rendered to the inmate so that the overall injury is lesser. Compensation is meant to create a state of things in which the former inmate will have received an amount of money settling the wrong done to him by wrongly placing him in prison. The rationale behind reducing compensation by the amount of board and lodging is probably that inmates serving terms are entitled to board and lodging of which the need results from a condition independent from and inconsistent with their will (imprisonment), i.e. you simply have to feed your prisoners that you put behind the bars against their will. In case of an innocent, if his conviction was overturned and there was no legal base for his being in prison, and he got compensation for that, it's only fair, according to some people in the government, to charge him for the food and bed. In other words, since the state covered such basic upkeep, the cost should be returned. If he's paid for the fact he shouldn't have been there, the state is paid for that upkeep. The prisoner still gets most of the money, but reduced by the amount corresponding with said upkeep.

As far as the money goes, it doesn't make much difference if someone gets 250K in compensation and is charged 12.5K for board and lodging, or if he gets 237.5K and no charging, or, for that matter, if he gets 257.5K compensation reduced by board and lodging for the sum of 20K. In every case he gets 237.5K net. I would see a problem, however, if the sum of compensation were calculated including all factors, including the fact he got some food and other upkeep from the state while in prison, and then the government came up with the idea of charging him for food and board - especially at hotel prices instead of actual costs incurred. Where I'm driving at is that while setting the initial sum of compensation, the judge should take into consideration that there will be deductions.

Of course, moving on to further levels of absurd, if the state is entitled to compensation for the upkeep of innocent prisoners, shouldn't perhaps the prisoners' compensation money include damages for the fact they weren't able to pick their menu or eat healthier or richer or pick a softer bed? Normally compensations are relatively small sums mostly considering the ill effect of passing an erroneous judgement and to some extent the overal deprivation of freedom. The fact Prisoner X wasn't able to have a double meat kebab at Turkish Delight is more of a, "well, tough luck," matter. So if the prisoner is supposed to grin and bear it and live with the fact the he won't get all the money he could earn, along with possible premiums and salary increases, expectable contracts and whatnot plus "moral damages", i.e. all in all - a sum making up for all monetary damage and profit not gained, as well as due compensation for the emotional suffering concerning all factors, then why should the state not be expected to grin and bear it and live with the fact he got food and a bed while in prison?

If we abolish any level of social responsibility and get down to calculating who incurred what losses and who's to blame, then it will turn out that:

1. The state paid for law enforcement, trial, transport, guarding the prisoner. None of the costs can in any way be attributed to the prisoner unless he was an idiot getting sentenced so he could be compensated later.

2. The state paid for the food, gym, TV, books, whatever benefits the prisoner enjoyed or needed for survival. The necessity came from his imprisonment, but he still consumed the food, read the books and so on, supposedly benefiting. While being guarded wasn't in his interest, taking food was.

If we refund #2, we should compensate scrupulously everything which can be traced on the prisoner's side, including but not limited to:

3. Legal costs - including any remotely sensible legal fees. All the costs incurred in fulfilling obligations imposed on him by law enforcement.

4. Monetary damage - loss of work as a result of imprisonment. Impossibility to fulfil contracts he couldn't live up to in prison. Contractual fines for not meeting deadlines etc.

5. Loss of profit while in prison - loss of reasonably expectable profit from work, salary increase, contracts, royalties, whatever applies including the possibility of finding better employment. Anything which can be said he reasonably could have.

6. Damage and loss of profit for what comes after prison - damage to his good name which persists after the reversal of his sentence. Any difficulty which he may face in the future as a result of imprisonment.

7. Emotional suffering - both from the miscarriage of justice as well as the whole period of imprisonment. This includes not merely the fact he couldn't go, but separation from outside world, family, friends, hobbies, social opportunities, having to live with the stigma of a criminal and so on.

9. Medical bills and similar costs - any damage to his health which originated or increased in prison, including personality problems and psychological conditions.

And so on and so forth until no injury remains that he would be expected to live with, and everything reasonably imaginable is compensated fully. Only then can we charge the expenses incurred by the state, I think. Otherwise the prisoner's rights are violated.

In my view, Ł250K is not enough for three years out of life, the suffering of confinement and isolation, estrangement from friends, separation with family and whatever else. Perhaps it's just enough to compensate the lost earnings and job opportunities.

Oh my, Nakia, that's a good point. Well, at first glance, he has the right to keep silent and expect justice to be done. On the other hand, on the factual level, he does risk a lot by not launching a competent defence. It's not so clear whether in the scope of civil law (compensations are generally a matter of civil law) the efforts he took in his defence should count in establishing how much he is to blame for his situation. So perhaps if he didn't do all he could, his compensation should be less (not talking about the obvious matter of legal fees to be compensated for, had he hired a lawyer)?

I believe that an innocent man should ideally, even if actually accused, be able to come out of the court a free man if he represents himself and acts rationally, not like an expert in law, but like a normal common citizen, however.

So all in all, the compensation shouldn't be smaller just because someone didn't hire a lawyer. The state would then be benefiting from its own shortcomings - deficiencies of the legal or judicial system. Since no one should benefit from his own poor performance, the state shouldn't pay smaller compensations just because the judicial system is so deficient that an innocent man gets sentenced purely on a lunatic's word without any evidence.

 

He still got 240,000 pounds for three years in jail. That's a lot of money and more than the average worker makes. The award and subsequent charge for room and board are formalities typical in bureaucracy -- the prison system must be reimbursed for such things (it's not the prisons fault if someone is wrongly imprisoned). It is quite likely the award was made 12,500 pounds higher to cover the costs -- this is just a paperwork shuffle of money that is done poorly.

 

Tal, to be honest I'm personally dismayed that people believe they "deserve" ridiculous payments for such things. Is it fair? No, but life isn't fair. He's been given an amount of money to help rebuild his life -- they can't give him back the time he's lost, nor can anyone really put a monitary value on that. But I believe the amount of money is reasonable.

Edit: I really sympathize for the guy and his family. I have experienced extended periods away from my family and it's not fun. What he deserves is justice. The woman, prosecutor, and detectives need to be prosecuted.

 

Hmm... The woman was sick, but yeah. The prosecutor and the detectives conducted the investigation very, very poorly. However, the judge also appears to have been somewhat indolent. I understand the system is adversarial, but you can't really put people behind the bars on unproven charges. If he can't demand more proof on his own accord, he can still dismiss the case or acquit the accused. Of course, judges aren't prosecuted, they answer before some bodies of their peers, but those can actually assign some noticeable penalties.

 

Well, while I can't say for sure whether this man hired a lawyer, it would be complete arrogance on his part if he chose not have one, or to defend himself. I would call it idiocy to defend yourself - at least accept a public defendant for goodness sake! - when there is a possibility of facing jail time. I know if I were accused of rape - even if I was sure of my innocence and that there was no evidence against me - I would certainly hire a defendant.

My question is how this case ever got into the courtroom with the lack of evidence? I thought that the US's legal system was similar to Britain's. In the US, before you get an actual trial, the prosecutors must present the evidence that they have to a grand jury, and the grand jury decides if there is enough evidence to merit a trial. The grand jury does not decide guilt - that is the job of the jury at the actual trial - the primary purpose of a grand jury is to ensure that a person does not have to answer to a ridiculous or obviously bogus charge. The grand jury decides based on prosecutor evidence and police testimony if a court trial is warranted. (On a somewhat related note, I'm actually a bit of an expert on the functions of grand juries - I got called to serve a 3 month term on a grand jury a couple of years ago.) I imagine some type of similar system has to exist in Britain; i.e., that a mentally unstable woman accusing someone of rape without any supporting evidence shouldn't even get a day in court.

The other problem is what was referenced earlier - if there actually was no evidence against this man, then evne a lawyer with a modicum of competence should have been able to beat the charges.

 

You can do that?