Do defendants found innocent get support / compensation?

[troubleanstrife]

It’s the Letby case that has set me thinking, but this is just a general question.

I was surprised to realise that she has been in prison for 5 years already while waiting for the trial and verdict. Obviously in her case it doesn’t matter because she is guilty and will be likely serving a life sentence anyway.

But if somebody were found to be innocent, they could have lost their job and their home in that time, and no doubt 5 years on prison takes its toll on mental and physical health too.

Would they be entitled to claim anything back, or get help to get their lives back on track?

Well now your ignorance is showing @EmpressSoleil . The conviction rate for rape at trial is around 35% and has been around that for some time. For sexual assault it is about 67%.

I completely agree that due process is necessary to protect us all from the power of the state and I do not subscribe to 'throw away the key'. But what I was pushing back on is the conflation of being found not guilty and the person not having committed the offense. Due process can mean evidence that supports the accusation but was not collected properly not being admissable in court. That is correct from a legal perspective so that we are all protected from shoddy policing. But in that instance it would be very grating to have that person then going around proclaiming their innocence and demanding compensation. So that is why I would not support the assertion made by the OP. Just being found not guilty would not be sufficient to get compensation. You could have an approach where there would be a further assessment as to whether the treatment by the law was proportional using a balance of probabilities approach, however I suspect many defendants found not guilty would not want that further scrutiny, with all evidence being considered.

But in that instance it would be very grating to have that person then going around proclaiming their innocence and demanding compensation.

You do realise that perspective was precisely why people like Andy Malkinson were effectively billed for "accommodation" costs after wrongful convictions? Because the mob held that acquittals were just guilty people escaping on technicalities so they should continue to be punished in other ways.

If someone accused you falsely but gave a really compelling rendition of their version of events (which is all witness testimony comes down to) - how exactly would you ever prove your innocence if all you had was your own version of the story? Especially if you yourself had poor public speaking skills or a less sympathetic presentation?

The rape victim in Andy Malkinson's trial sat in court and told the jury she was "100%" certain he was the rapist. She wasn't lying but she was mistaken.

Journalists who were in court at the time have described how that was the moment they too believed him guilty. How after that point they viewed all his behaviour through the lens of a guilty person - including his reaction to being convicted. Now they look back and see it differently.

Do you want your liberty to hinge on the story telling abilities of other people?

I fully accept that it's possible for people to be falsely accused and convicted and that it has happened. Do you believe that it's possible for people who committed a crime to be found not guilty and that it happens in the courts? We're just picking the side we come down harder on. I believe there are far more 'guilty' people acquitted than innocent people falsely convicted. I don't have stats for that, only my personal experience. If you have stats that prove one or the other (although I suspect it's impossible because we have no idea how many people who actually committed a crime were found not guilty) I am happy to learn further. My belief is based on my experience and on that basis I don't believe that as a matter of course people found not guilty should be compensated. I am not an apologist for the police or the judiciary or a believer in the infallibilty of the system. I do have experience however of victims of serious crime going through the courts process and that informs my perspective.

But in that instance it would be very grating to have that person then going around proclaiming their innocence and demanding compensation.

Ah ...

There are plenty of precedents of people cleared by criminal courts who have been determined to be guilty by a civil court and denied damages for libel. The murderers of Stephen Lawrence for one.

Do you believe that it's possible for people who committed a crime to be found not guilty and that it happens in the courts?

Yes. Absolutely.

But I think it is better for society that everyone is treated as innocent unless and until proven guilty in a fair process to an impeccable standard.

I believe there are far more 'guilty' people acquitted than innocent people falsely convicted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio

Bad form to quote oneself, but I hadn't seen the Chinese scholars comment until today ....

Wow. Now you are getting to being offensive because your arguments are weak; and as someone else has pointed out, your "facts" are incorrect anyway. So you claim to work in the criminal justice system, yet you don't know what evidence is, you don't believe in the legal system, and you can't provide accurate facts? No wonder the system is in such disarray if this is an example of the way it works.

The purpose of the criminal justice system is to evaluate events and facts, present them to a group of "impartial" citizens, and enable those people to reach a conclusion as to whether there is evidence that a crime has been committed - not to decide who is lying. If we want to go down the route of just deciding which person is lying, we may as well make a game show out of it and have phone in votes. Kind of "Strictly Guilty" for the edification of the masses. Bugger whether there's evidence, let's make it a popularity contest.

We already know from masses of factual research - and some overturned convictions - that jury bias exists. No matter how much we attempt to do so, we cannot wholly eliminate that from the system, nor can we realistically test people to see if they are capable of critical thinking or smart enough to sit on a jury. All humans are fallible an so any system will have flaws.

But you are suggesting that simply because an allegation is made that means we should assume it to be true, based on the allegation and not the facts. That is not justice.

You need to wise up. Hand "justice" to lynch mobs and you get innocent people killed. And at a basic level, that is what you are suggesting. Courts are not about who we think is lying. They are about who we can prove is lying. Yes, it is very disturbing that in a misogynistic society where the character of women, their behaviour and how they dress still "informs" opinions as to guilt of the parties involved. But that is about jury bias - making assumptions based not on facts or evidence, but on social and personal opinions. Just like you are doing.

The problem with claiming expertise on an anonymous public forum is that it is not a believable stance - you have no idea what my expertise is, or from where anyone else draws their expertise. You may not believe that people found not guilty should be compensated. So does that mean that you also believe that it is quite acceptable for people to lose their livelihoods, their careers, their homes, perhaps even their families? To suffer mental damage and ill health because of their experiences? To continue to have all aspects of their lives impacted because (like some here) they are deemed to be "guilty until proven innocent"? I appreciate that your personal experience is of victims of crime. What is your personal experience of people who have had their lives ripped apart by faulty allegations?

It may be the case that some of the people found not guilty of a crime were actually guilty, but that there was insufficent evidence to convict. I don't deny that. Perhaps, as some people suggest (but cannot provide any evidence for) that is the majority of "not guilty" people. But what about the alleged victims and witnesses who lie? What about the ones who are simply mistaken? Because it might also be a small number of them, but they also exist.

Until we have a foolproof ability to determine which is which, it is an injustice not to help people whose lives have been shattered to rebuild them. And where there is quantifiable loss that may involve compensation. Set aside the compensation angle, and convicted criminals get more help than people found not guilty.

I've been on jury service. I have no doubt that one of the people acquitted was guilty of a crime, but not the one he was charged with. There was reasonable doubt for a couple of others who were probably guilty. They would have been convicted if it was a civil case and you were looking at balance of probability. In some types of case juries are more likely to give defendants the benefit of any doubt. The experience convinced me that more guilty people would be acquitted than innocent people found guilty.

If compensation was available for people on remand but not found guilty juries might be more inclined to convict.

There are support groups for people who have been in prison. If they are not currently supporting those found to be innocent perhaps that is where to look for support.

As good a place as any to drop this. Remember the tissue thin concept of "human rights" is all that stands between you and the state. If you don't want them, fine. But I'll keep mine, thank you very much.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/20/the-terrible-power-of-the-state-to-ruin-lives-was-exposed-by-the-case-of-andrew-malkinson

Remember the tissue thin concept of "human rights" is all that stands between you and the state. If you don't want them, fine. But I'll keep mine, thank you very much.

Agreed, @SerendipityJane, and I've found myself thinking a fair bit lately: my human rights belong to me, pal - they are not yours to give away on my behalf without my consent.

The problem is we live in a system where a political majority (Tory or Labour) is taken as "consent".