Britain bills innocent prisoners for room and board

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-04-03 02:13pm

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

Or could it be that he knows that our prisons are shit, and thinks that recouping money might be a good idea?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-04-03 02:14pm

Sharp-kun wrote:
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.

So because the government fucks up, we should charge people for rent in prisons?

I see, so two wrongs make a right

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-04-03 02:18pm

Ghost Rider wrote: So because the government fucks up, we should charge people for rent in prisons?

I see, so two wrongs make a right

And I ask again, do you have a better way?

The guy has saved money by being in prison, he is getting £60,000+. I would say he has done ok in terms of being compensated.

Barrister Robin Tam, for Lord Brennan, said it was "undoubtedly true" that Mr O'Brien had saved money that he would otherwise have had to spend on the "necessities of life" during his time in prison.

To award him full compensation for his loss of earnings - without making any deduction for saved living expenses - would leave him in "a better position" financially than he would have been in had he never been jailed.

Underlining the cash paid is "public money", Mr Tam said he would effectively be over-compensated and that would be "to the detriment of the public at large".

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-04-03 02:19pm

Sharp-kun wrote: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?

That might be a little less insensitive but it would still be wrong.

As O’Brien says in the BBC article "They don't charge guilty people for bed and board, they only charge innocent people." The wrongfully convicted get a terrible deal in the UK and are given none of the rehabilitation that the guilty get, now we expect them to pay for their imprisonment as well.

I’d support charging wealthy (and I mean very wealthy) guilty prisoners such as Archer or Saunders for their stay especially when they’re corporate criminals who steal millions that are often never recovered. However these charges should be waived for the wrongfully convicted because they should never have been in prison to begin with. They have already been ripped from their lives, been paraded in front of the media and had to live in unpleasant circumstances with some extremely unpleasant people. To then demand that the innocent pay for their mistreatment is astonishing.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-04-03 02:19pm

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.

Let them eat the loss and deal with it. This guy's life may have been ruined forever by the government's fuckery, he doesn't owe them shit.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-04-03 02:21pm

Sharp-kun wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote: So because the government fucks up, we should charge people for rent in prisons?

I see, so two wrongs make a right
And I ask again, do you have a better way?

The guy has saved money by being in prison, he is getting £60,000+. I would say he has done ok in terms of being compensated.

They fucked over his life, gave him compensation for THEIR fuck up, and NOW wish to piss on the wound some more.

Yes, here's my better solution either less fuck ups or let the matter be...they fucked up, they can suck up the loss.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-04-03 02:21pm

Joe wrote:
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.
Let them eat the loss and deal with it.

Don't you mean let the public ear the loss and deal with it?

Secondly, it was not the current government. Like all things, blame the Tories

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-03 02:21pm

Sharp-kun wrote:
Glocksman wrote: If Blunkett was a decent human being instead of a dripping asshole, he would quash the appeal and accept the High Court's decision.
Or could it be that he knows that our prisons are shit, and thinks that recouping money might be a good idea?

Let me put it as simply as I can.

The mere idea of charging an innocent person for 'room and board' while they were wrongfully imprisoned is one that only a total asshole could support regardless of the sums involved.

If he want to recoup money, then why not go after some of the individuals who are responsible for this miscarriage of justice?

Crazy_Vasey · Post by **Crazy_Vasey** » 2004-04-03 02:22pm

This is almost exactly equivalent to a kidnapper charging his victim rent. I cannot believe that anyone would defend it!

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-04-03 02:22pm

Ghost Rider wrote: They fucked over his life, gave him compensation for THEIR fuck up, and NOW wish to piss on the wound some more.

Would you have had a problem had they just given him £60,000 and not asked for some back?

Ghost Rider wrote:they fucked up, they can suck up the loss.

and increase taxes to pay for our prisons

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-04-03 02:23pm

Glocksman wrote: The mere idea of charging an innocent person for 'room and board' while they were wrongfully imprisoned is one that only a total asshole could support regardless of the sums involved.

But their not, they're charging him for "saved living costs".

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-04-03 02:26pm

Sharp-kun wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote: They fucked over his life, gave him compensation for THEIR fuck up, and NOW wish to piss on the wound some more.
Would you have had a problem had they just given him £60,000 and not asked for some back?

No I wouldn't. They fucked over his life...their mistake.

Sharp-kun wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:they fucked up, they can suck up the loss.
and increase taxes to pay for our prisons

Their fuck up still.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-03 02:26pm

They can call it 'danegeld' or 'state support monies', and it wouldn't matter.

It's still charging him for being imprisoned.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-04-03 02:28pm

Ghost Rider wrote:
Sharp-kun wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote: They fucked over his life, gave him compensation for THEIR fuck up, and NOW wish to piss on the wound some more.
Would you have had a problem had they just given him £60,000 and not asked for some back?
No I wouldn't. They fucked over his life...their mistake.

So you only have a problem because they actually said they wanted some money back? Doing it behind the scenes by simply giving him less in fhe first place would have been fine?

Ghost Rider wrote: Their fuck up still.

And I don't want to pay for it thank you.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-04-03 02:28pm

Sharp-kun wrote:The government unfortunatly can't control peoples minds, they can't change what people may think of him.

Actually I'm quite glad the government can't control peoples minds for reasons so obvious hopefully you won’t ask me to detail them.

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

Would you? Don't you think you might be a bit mad at the government for screwing your life up, stealing 12 years of the only life you'll ever have and then expecting you to pay them for the privilege.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-04-03 02:31pm

Plekhanov wrote: Would you? Don't you think you might be a bit mad at the government for screwing your life up, stealing 12 years of the only life you'll ever have and then expecting you to pay them for the privilege.

Yes, I might be pissed off. But I also know that ~£30,000 is not going to really change that.

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2004-04-03 02:35pm

Crazy_Vasey wrote:This is almost exactly equivalent to a kidnapper charging his victim rent. I cannot believe that anyone would defend it!

Good summary, except for the fact that it understates the insensitivity of it somewhat. Most kidnappers don't get to forever ruin their victim's reputations after all.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-04-03 02:39pm

Glocksman wrote:If he want to recoup money, then why not go after some of the individuals who are responsible for this miscarriage of justice?

Some hope, as usual no charges were brought against those who stitched him up. At worst it'll just mean a few officers retiring early on full pensions.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-04-03 02:41pm

Sharp-kun wrote:
Plekhanov wrote: Would you? Don't you think you might be a bit mad at the government for screwing your life up, stealing 12 years of the only life you'll ever have and then expecting you to pay them for the privilege.
Yes, I might be pissed off. But I also know that ~£30,000 is not going to really change that.

Might be pissed? You must have alot of self control I'd be mad as hell.

I don't think it's the money that bothers him it's the principle.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-03 02:47pm

Sharp-kun wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote: Their fuck up still.
And I don't want to pay for it thank you.

There's a lot of things that my city, state, and national governments do that I don't like paying for either.

But there's a damn sight difference between being pissed that your Mayor wants to waste tax money on building a stadium that benefits only his campaign contributors and defending charging the wrongfully imprisoned for 'savings while imprisoned'.

And some Europeans call Americans 'selfish'

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-04-03 02:52pm

Glocksman wrote:
Sharp-kun wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote: Their fuck up still.
And some Europeans call Americans 'selfish'

Selfish would be me saying he should not have got £600,000.

I say again, he has been amply compensated even with the deduction. The fact that I don't want taxes to increase simply because he is unhappy with getting slightly less is not selfishness.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-04-03 02:53pm

Sharp-kun wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:
Sharp-kun wrote: Would you have had a problem had they just given him £60,000 and not asked for some back?
No I wouldn't. They fucked over his life...their mistake.
So you only have a problem because they actually said they wanted some money back? Doing it behind the scenes by simply giving him less in fhe first place would have been fine?

Ghost Rider wrote: Their fuck up still.
And I don't want to pay for it thank you.

someone has to pay for it. having an innocent guy to pay for room and board while he was confined against his will is seriously fucked up. especially if he wound up losing his house and job during the itme he was in prison. He deserves reparation, because it was the courts that fucked him over, not extra baggage in the form of unnecessary bills.

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2004-04-03 02:54pm

Sharp-kun wrote:
Glocksman wrote:
Sharp-kun wrote: And some Europeans call Americans 'selfish'
Selfish would be me saying he should not have got £600,000.

I say again, he has been amply compensated even with the deduction. The fact that I don't want taxes to increase simply because he is unhappy with getting slightly less is not selfishness.

And why can't the wages of the people responsible for the miscarriage of justice be garnished exactly?

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2004-04-03 02:55pm

One good thing about the British, at least their criminal justice is almost as screwed up as ours. It's a comfort that whenever folks bitch about our system, I can just point out that in the U.K. a man can go to prison for injuring a home invader, and now I can mention this too.

Sharp, the thing is, there is much more to life than money. To many people, principle is just as important. It isn't the fact that he is getting less money, just forget about the £600,000, just put the numbers out of you mind, it is the fact that he is being billed for "saved living expenses" at all. It is the insult of saying "oh, so sorry, we made a mistake that has caused you uncounted hardships and griefs and potentially ruined your life, but look, you saved a bit of money on rent and food and utilities, so we'd like that back." It doesn't matter how much or how little they are charging him, it is the mere fact that he is being charged at all. Frankly, it sounds like a sketch from Monty Python. I can just picture John Cleese sitting down with some poor victim and apologizing for the conviction and then asking how he is going to make payment.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-04-03 02:56pm

Darth_Zod wrote: someone has to pay for it. having an innocent guy to pay for room and board while he was confined against his will is seriously fucked up. especially if he wound up losing his house and job during the itme he was in prison. He deserves reparation, because it was the courts that fucked him over, not extra baggage in the form of unnecessary bills.

And even with the money he may lose, he is still getting over £600,000. I have no problem with that as he deserves it.

However, he has still saved money by being in prison, and public money has been wasted. It is not entirely unreasonable to remove a small amount from his compensation (still leaving him with the vast majority).