Britain bills innocent prisoners for room and board

[TheDarkling]

The guy was awarded £650,000 in compensation, for stuff like lost earnings, emotional damage etc and the fact that being in prison saved him 37,000 has been taken into account. The idea of the compensation is to set things as they should be and if things were as they should be he would have paid those 37,000 in costs, he is still getting over half a million and what you find objectionable is nothing more than a small legitimate detraction taken into account when computing his compensation.

[TheDarkling]

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.

And he has got compensation to the tune of £600,000.

[Sharp-kun]

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.

Would you rather then that they awarded him less, and quietly kept the money they might have given him otherwise to cover costs? Nobody would have known....

I am aware of the principle of it, and have said that it is not an ideal solution. The prisons need money though, and I do not see taking a small amount off someones ample compensation as too high a price to pay.

[Johonebesus]

Would you rather then that they awarded him less, and quietly kept the money they might have given him otherwise to cover costs? Nobody would have known....

I am aware of the principle of it, and have said that it is not an ideal solution. The prisons need money though, and I do not see taking a small amount off someones ample compensation as too high a price to pay.

At the risk of parroting others, yes. It isn't about the money, it's the insult of being asked to pay for your own upkeep while enduring an unjust incarceration. I don't care one whit that they are keeping a bit of money for their own expense, though I think it would be preferable for them to be stuck with the loss, it's the fact that they have the gall to bill him for it. It is incredibly insulting. Can you not see past the money to understand how insulting that is?

[Sharp-kun]

it's the insult of being asked to pay for your own upkeep while enduring an unjust incarceration.

But he's not, he's paying the money he would have otherwise spent.

[TheDarkling]

But he's not, he's paying the money he would have otherwise spent.

Exactly the point which people seem to be overlooking, he isn't being asked to pay for his imprisonment he is having the money he saved because he was in prison knocked off his compensation (so that his compensation is the correct figure to reset his life back to where it should be).

[Ghost Rider]

But he's not, he's paying the money he would have otherwise spent.

Exactly the point which people seem to be overlooking, he isn't being asked to pay for his imprisonment he is having the money he saved because he was in prison knocked off his compensation (so that his compensation is the correct figure to reset his life back to where it should be).

Then they should've taken it out through accounting methods quietly rather then going "Oops, sorry about fucking your life over, but errrrr...we need this amount paid back to us because we wrongfully imprisoned you and this is the amount you would've spent if we didn't wrongfully imprison you, have a nice day."

[Sharp-kun]

Then they should've taken it out through accounting methods quietly rather then going "Oops, sorry about fucking your life over, but errrrr...we need this amount paid back to us because we wrongfully imprisoned you and this is the amount you would've spent if we didn't wrongfully imprison you, have a nice day."

Aren't people compaining about the fact that goverments do too much in secret though?

[RedImperator]

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.

Please divide £37,000 by the total population of Great Britain and tell me if the extra tax burden to you is comparable to being imprisoned for doing absolutely nothing wrong and having part of your compensation docked because the state thoughtfully saved you the trouble of paying for food, rent, and utilities during that time.

[Wicked Pilot]

Correct me if I'm wrong in my interpetation here, but since the former inmates never agreed to, nor asked the government to pay their rent, food, utilities, etc, then the should not owe a thing. If the cable company gives me free HBO even though I did not ask for it, I sure as hell will not pay for it should they decide to bill me later for their mistake.

[Sharp-kun]

Correct me if I'm wrong in my interpetation here, but since the former inmates never agreed to, nor asked the government to pay their rent, food, utilities, etc, then the should not owe a thing. If the cable company gives me free HBO even though I did not ask for it, I sure as hell will not pay for it should they decide to bill me later for their mistake.

Read the thread. He is not paying for that.

[Edi]

Sharp-kun, you're obviously a total fuckwit, that's about the only answer your Wall of Ignorance deserves. Darkling, your views can be easily labeled in the same category but not quite in the same magnitude range. Why don't the two of you try and study some legal principles underlying your justice system and then come back to me with this shit. This bullshit you advocate violates the basic foundation principles of your justice system, and just because David Blunkett is a contemptible asshole who has no respect for the rule of law doesn't make your views any less wrong.

I've often blasted the American legal system for its flaws and been at odds with Americans about how some things should be done, but I've never found one yet who actually supports making innocent people victimized by government fuckups pay for them after having their life permanently screwed up. As of now, Brits have the dubious distinction of taking that dishonor on themselves.

Fact remains that while the 650,000 quid he's getting has been derived by a calculation based on large part on assumptions that can't be verified, it's still just a surrogate compensation for what he lost and can't get back, so the UK government should just shut the fuck up and suck it up. When a government makes mistakes like this one, it is its duty to take the resulting hits without complaint. The individual cases are rare enough that the cost of it doesn't even amount to a rounding error on the tax burden of a country the size of the UK, as Red already pointed out. If Tony B.Liar had any spine in him, he'd fire Blunkett over this, citing unacceptable incompetence, but I think he's too keen on all the other shit Blunkett has been trying to push down your throats recently.

Edi

[Glocksman]

But he's not, he's paying the money he would have otherwise spent.

Exactly the point which people seem to be overlooking, he isn't being asked to pay for his imprisonment he is having the money he saved because he was in prison knocked off his compensation (so that his compensation is the correct figure to reset his life back to where it should be).

Are the two of you being obdurate on purpose?

No matter how you phrase it, the practical outcome of the Home Office's position is that he has to compensate the government for its expenses in wrongly imprisoning him.

Calling it 'money he saved' or 'room and board' doesn't change that fact at all.

[aerius]

Par for the course for a government I must say, the government fucks up and someone else has to pay, what a wonderful fucking concept, especially now that it's been applied to the justice system. I love it, let's put falsely accused people in jail and charge them rent, beautiful! So when are they going to setup a system to frame people and toss them in jail on falsified charges? That is the next logical step of course.

What can I say, thank god I live in Canada where I don't have to deal with shit like that.

[Wicked Pilot]

Read the thread. He is not paying for that.

What, the HBO?

[Tribun]

The whole thing stinks.

[Sharp-kun]

This bullshit you advocate violates the basic foundation principles of your justice system, and just because David Blunkett is a contemptible asshole who has no respect for the rule of law doesn't make your views any less wrong.

Provide an example of where it violates the principles. It also remains fact that it wasn't Blunkett who originally made the ruling.

I've never found one yet who actually supports making innocent people victimized by government fuckups pay for them after having their life permanently screwed up. As of now, Brits have the dubious distinction of taking that dishonor on themselves.

He's being victimised or is he just having his actual compensation calculated?

Would you have had any problem had this all been done behind the scenes, and he'd simply been given less compensation without knowing that he'd got less than he might have?

When a government makes mistakes like this one, it is its duty to take the resulting hits without complaint.

But it wasn't this government.

The whole thing stinks.

I agree, and I don't entirely agree with it, but the guy still gets over half a million quid no matter how the ruling goes.

[Edi]

This bullshit you advocate violates the basic foundation principles of your justice system, and just because David Blunkett is a contemptible asshole who has no respect for the rule of law doesn't make your views any less wrong.

Provide an example of where it violates the principles. It also remains fact that it wasn't Blunkett who originally made the ruling.

He has no debt whatsoever to the government. They would need to have this signed in a law to have any hold. He did not enter prison willingly, he was forced, without justification. Therefore there is no contractual basis for the payment they want, there is no taxation basis for it, nor any other than just the government wanting more money.

I've never found one yet who actually supports making innocent people victimized by government fuckups pay for them after having their life permanently screwed up. As of now, Brits have the dubious distinction of taking that dishonor on themselves.

He's being victimised or is he just having his actual compensation calculated?

It was calculated to be 650,000 quid, so nice try with the red herring. Where's your evidence that they have a legal right to demand payment from him?

Would you have had any problem had this all been done behind the scenes, and he'd simply been given less compensation without knowing that he'd got less than he might have?

If that "rent money" reason was a factor in the process, yes. The basis this kind of decisions are made on must be transparent and public in order to truly give legitimacy to the justice system, and if that kind of shit is put in there, it just pulls the credibility right out from under it.

When a government makes mistakes like this one, it is its duty to take the resulting hits without complaint.

But it wasn't this government.

Oh no, the justice system, which is the judicial arm of the government fucked up, and when the mistake was finally corrected as well as can be reasonably expected, the executive arm tries to screw him over? Nice try at splitting hairs, though.

The whole thing stinks.

I agree, and I don't entirely agree with it, but the guy still gets over half a million quid no matter how the ruling goes.

Which is not going to do anything to bring back those 12 years, and frankly, I'd choose 12 years of freedom over 650,000 quid and 12 years of my life stolen, every single time.

Edi

[TheDarkling]

Are the two of you being obdurate on purpose?

No matter how you phrase it, the practical outcome of the Home Office's position is that he has to compensate the government for its expenses in wrongly imprisoning him.

No he is not compensating the government, the government is compensating him less because they saved him cost of living expenses just like they cost him wages he would have earned.

[TheDarkling]

Then they should've taken it out through accounting methods quietly rather then going "Oops, sorry about fucking your life over, but errrrr...we need this amount paid back to us because we wrongfully imprisoned you and this is the amount you would've spent if we didn't wrongfully imprison you, have a nice day."

I don't disagree it should have been kept quiet but people aren't arguing that it is a bad way to deduct the money they are arguing that it is monstrous to deduct the money.

[TheDarkling]

Snip

The guy’s compensation was computing at 650,000 and then it was realised that the compensation was overly generous, the money was deducted and the sum handed over. The government didn't give him the 650 k then send a bill and as for "sucking it up" the government is accurately computing the compensation, how else will they know what to hand over.

[Illuminatus Primus]

What a bunch of semantical horseshit, Darkling.

How about all the previous wrongfully imprisioned? How come this guy newly and especially got his compensation differently?

The net effect is still that his otherwise larger compensation is being limited for a cause: making him pay for his own wrongful imprisionment.

Now refute that without semantics or nitpicking or evading the point.

[HemlockGrey]

So why don't they make actual convicts pay again?

[General Zod]

So why don't they make actual convicts pay again?

depending on the country and even state/province, they very well may have to pay. i know that in some county jails the prisoners are charged fees for staying there every day, but not presented with knowledge of any kind of bill until they're released. although i'm not sure how widespread this is.

[TheDarkling]

What a bunch of semantical horseshit, Darkling.

How about all the previous wrongfully imprisioned? How come this guy newly and especially got his compensation differently?

New policy (at the original point where the issue came up) I would guess, although the other two convicted with him got a similar "bill" (although theirs was for £60,000).

The net effect is still that his otherwise larger compensation is being limited for a cause: making him pay for his own wrongful imprisionment.

That isn't what the ruling was based on.

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

The above is a quote from the Barrister and he puts forth that the argument is about getting the compensation right not making the guy pay for his own imprisonment.

Now if you show me where you get the impression that the home office is just charging him for his time spent in prison then I may agree with you but from what I can see this is about adjusting his compensation to be reflective of actual costs incurred due to imprisonment.