Britain bills innocent prisoners for room and board

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-04-03 03:21am

THE CRADLE OF COMMON LAW: When suspects are convicted of a crime and,
after years in prison, are proven to be innocent, how does society
repay them for their incarceration? The U.K.'s Home Secretary, David
Blunkett, has an idea of what to do: charge the former prisoners for
food and board -- at least 3,000 pounds (US$5,430) per year for the
prisoners' "saved living expenses" during their time in stir. A
spokesman for the Home Office said the concept "takes into account the
range of costs the prisoner might have incurred had they not been
imprisoned," adding "Morally, this is reasonable and appropriate." It's
not a proposal: the government has already sent bills to some freed
prisoners. A spokesman for the Scottish Miscarriage of Justice
Organisation called the program a way to "punish people for having the
audacity to be innocent." (Glasgow Sunday Herald) ...And the world
thinks America is contemptible?

Got this in an e-mail from a friend. I trust him, but he didn't provide his source. I've e-mailed him back to ask where he got it and will have source material as soon as possible. Anybody in the EBC know anything about this?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-03 03:22am

Has to be a joke.

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2004-04-03 03:22am

It certainly sounds like something Thatcher would have come up with back in the day.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-04-03 03:50am

Howedar wrote:Has to be a joke.

Well, also included was the bit about prison guards not being allowed to wear stab-proof vests, which we know is real. I assumed if he was going to joke, he'd have joked the whole thing. Also, I just got this e-mail twenty minutes ago, late on the 2nd. No April Fool's joke here.

Crazy_Vasey · Post by **Crazy_Vasey** » 2004-04-03 05:39am

It's true. I've seen it reported in various new sources including the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3514848.stm

That's one of them.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-04-03 06:28am

They aren't charging them for being innocent, they are deducting saved living costs from the compensation they receive for being wrongfully imprisoned.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-04-03 08:10am

It's still fucked up as hell. If the government makes a mistake that results in somebody losing their freedom without cause, it sure as hell has no right to bitch about a few thousand quids worth of extra expenses that its own fuckup caused. What that amounts to is insult on top of injury, because the wrongfully imprisoned person isn't going to get back the time they spent behind bars, so they should be entitled to that compensation without any deductions instead of being insulted like this.

Edi

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-04-03 10:10am

Edi wrote:It's still fucked up as hell. If the government makes a mistake that results in somebody losing their freedom without cause, it sure as hell has no right to bitch about a few thousand quids worth of extra expenses that its own fuckup caused. What that amounts to is insult on top of injury, because the wrongfully imprisoned person isn't going to get back the time they spent behind bars, so they should be entitled to that compensation without any deductions instead of being insulted like this.

Edi

You get a shitload of money in prison, you're only allowed to spend £20 a week, and get room and board free. They also can get jobs and pull down money for that (only being able to spend £20 of it per week remember)and it all mounts up.

Not saying that it's "morally" right, but it's probably the most effective and workable way to make sure public money isn't squandered, plus the wrongfully imprisoned likely don't give that much of a shit since they saved up all the money from paying rent/mortgage on the outside.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-04-03 11:31am

Rye wrote: You get a shitload of money in prison, you're only allowed to spend £20 a week, and get room and board free. They also can get jobs and pull down money for that (only being able to spend £20 of it per week remember)and it all mounts up.

Not saying that it's "morally" right, but it's probably the most effective and workable way to make sure public money isn't squandered, plus the wrongfully imprisoned likely don't give that much of a shit since they saved up all the money from paying rent/mortgage on the outside.

Well that is the thing; this guy is getting £650,000 as compensation and being asked to pay back £35,000 because the compensation wasn't taking into account what he had already received. If I were him I would take the 600 grand and not complain.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-04-03 12:16pm

The treatment of the wrongfully convicted in the UK is disgusting, they get non of the rehabilitation that the guilty get on leaving prison they are simply dumped on the street and expected to get on with it. Not so easy if you been in there for several decades like the Birmingham 6.

Much like many of the other victims of miscarriages of justice O’Brien was effectively kidnapped by the state, tortured into giving a false confession and then a large chunk of his life stolen from him. To charge him for stealing is life is just too much.

If this is justified just think how much the South African government could claim back of Mandela he was imprisoned for over 25 years. Maybe the hostage takers in the Lebanon should bill Terry Waite, MacCarthy and the rest for the hospitality they enjoyed in Beirut back in the 80s.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-04-03 12:20pm

This is disgusting to me. The whole POINT of the thing is that he was wrongly imprisoned, so he doesn't owe the state jack shit. They owe him compensation for lost earnings, time of his life that he's never, ever going to get back, permanently ruined reputation, family hardship, et cetera. That doesn't change one iota.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-04-03 12:27pm

Iceberg wrote:This is disgusting to me. The whole POINT of the thing is that he was wrongly imprisoned, so he doesn't owe the state jack shit. They owe him compensation for lost earnings, time of his life that he's never, ever going to get back, permanently ruined reputation, family hardship, et cetera. That doesn't change one iota.

i couldn't agree more. (thats scary) There was a detective in my hometown who was convicted of murder. He obviously lost his job as a detective and spent almost 10 years in prison. Ten years later the real killer confessed and actually provided evidence proving his own guilt. They still treated the ex-cop like shit, refused to re hire him etc. Well he sued and was awarded 10 years back pay with intrest, reactivatedand given a pension. It's sad that the proven innocent have to fight so hard to get any sense of normal life back whereas the guilty who complete sentences are afforded a state sponsered transition into normal life.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-04-03 01:12pm

I'm still waiting for confirmation on this. I've seen an article in one paper (the Herald), and thats it. I would think that if it was true there would be far more fuss.

Crazy_Vasey · Post by **Crazy_Vasey** » 2004-04-03 01:32pm

Sharp-kun wrote:I'm still waiting for confirmation on this. I've seen an article in one paper (the Herald), and thats it. I would think that if it was true there would be far more fuss.

Did you miss the BBC link I posted?

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-04-03 01:37pm

Crazy_Vasey wrote:
Sharp-kun wrote:I'm still waiting for confirmation on this. I've seen an article in one paper (the Herald), and thats it. I would think that if it was true there would be far more fuss.
Did you miss the BBC link I posted?

He's still getting £60,000+, I see no real problem here. He is still getting a good amount of compensation from the state for the mistake. Its not an ideal solution, but he's hardly being treated like shit.

Had they just awarded him £60,000, and kept the rest to cover costs without telling anyone, would he have complained that he wasn't getting enough? I don't think so.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-04-03 01:53pm

Sharp-kun wrote:He's still getting £60,000+, I see no real problem here. He is still getting a good amount of compensation from the state for the mistake. Its not an ideal solution, but he's hardly being treated like shit.

They falsely arrested him, obtained a false confession using dubious methods, took 12 years of his life and now expect him to pay them for the privilege of living in a high security prison. If you were in his position wouldn’t you find being billed for room and board under these circumstances just a little bit antagonising? The government owe him, claiming back living expenses is petty and incredibly insensitive.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-04-03 01:57pm

Plekhanov wrote:
Sharp-kun wrote:He's still getting £60,000+, I see no real problem here. He is still getting a good amount of compensation from the state for the mistake. Its not an ideal solution, but he's hardly being treated like shit.
They falsely arrested him, obtained a false confession using dubious methods, took 12 years of his life and now expect him to pay them for the privilege of living in a high security prison. If you were in his position wouldn’t you find being billed for room and board under these circumstances just a little bit antagonising? The government owe him, claiming back living expenses is petty and incredibly insensitive.

And as it says, he is still getting over £60,000. He is being compensated.
Would there be such a fuss if they'd just awarded him the ~£60,000 and used the amount they'd have saved for the same purpose?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-04-03 02:01pm

Sharp-kun wrote:
Plekhanov wrote:
Sharp-kun wrote:He's still getting £60,000+, I see no real problem here. He is still getting a good amount of compensation from the state for the mistake. Its not an ideal solution, but he's hardly being treated like shit.
They falsely arrested him, obtained a false confession using dubious methods, took 12 years of his life and now expect him to pay them for the privilege of living in a high security prison. If you were in his position wouldn’t you find being billed for room and board under these circumstances just a little bit antagonising? The government owe him, claiming back living expenses is petty and incredibly insensitive.
And as it says, he is still getting over £60,000. He is being compensated.
Would there be such a fuss if they'd just awarded him the ~£60,000 and used the amount they'd have saved for the same purpose?

Getting a permanent black mark on your legal record, that every employer will always see and scruntize...sorry paying him isn't compensation enough.

And to add salt they WANT rent?

Hell, he might as well stayed at this rate.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-03 02:04pm

It's not the amount of money, it's the fact that the dripping asshole known as Home Secretary David Blunkett thinks that anyone who was wrongfully imprisoned owes the government that imprisoned him anything other than a heartfelt 'kiss my ass'.

This is simply Orwellian, or perhaps it's the UK version of the Chinese practice of charging the condemned prisoner's family for the bullet used to execute him.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-04-03 02:05pm

Ghost Rider wrote: Getting a permanent black mark on your legal record, that every employer will always see and scruntize...sorry paying him isn't compensation enough.

Then what would you have done? The government unfortunatly can't control peoples minds, they can't change what people may think of him.

If I were him, I'd take my £60,000+, and just do the best I could.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-04-03 02:07pm

Glocksman wrote:It's not the amount of money, it's the fact that the dripping asshole known as Home Secretary David Blunkett thinks that anyone who was wrongfully imprisoned owes the government that imprisoned him anything other than a heartfelt 'kiss my ass'.

The original ruling to deduct the £37,000 was made by independent adjudicator Lord Brennan QC.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-04-03 02:07pm

Sharp-kun wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote: Getting a permanent black mark on your legal record, that every employer will always see and scruntize...sorry paying him isn't compensation enough.
Then what would you have done? The government unfortunatly can't control peoples minds, they can't change what people may think of him.

If I were him, I'd take my £60,000+, and just do the best I could.

This isn't about controlling minds...this is a legal predicament that was NOT his fault. It's THEIR FAULT. And they add to it, by pissing all over him?

Literally this would be if the IRS audited me, said oops sorry, but asked for $3000 for their services of their audit.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-03 02:11pm

Sharp-kun wrote:
Glocksman wrote:It's not the amount of money, it's the fact that the dripping asshole known as Home Secretary David Blunkett thinks that anyone who was wrongfully imprisoned owes the government that imprisoned him anything other than a heartfelt 'kiss my ass'.

The original ruling to deduct the £37,000 was made by independent adjudicator Lord Brennan QC.

The original ruling was, but the appeal is being filed by the Home Office after the adjudicator's ruling was overturned.

If Blunkett was a decent human being instead of a dripping asshole, he would quash the appeal and accept the High Court's decision.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-04-03 02:12pm

If they charged the guilty, this would STILL be morally reprehensible. As it is, it's monstrous.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-04-03 02:12pm

Ghost Rider wrote: This isn't about controlling minds...this is a legal predicament that was NOT his fault. It's THEIR FAULT. And they add to it, by pissing all over him?

Yes, pissing all over him such that he still gets the vast majority of his original compensation

Our prison service is fucked up as it is. If compensating people with slightly less then what they were originally going to get is going to benefit it somewhat then yay.

I do not think it is the best solution, but if you have a better way to recoup some of the public money that has been wasted, then please say it.