Prison living costs rule scrapped for wrongly convicted

[rjfp1962]

I didn't even know these costs existed for the wrongly convicted....! This could get expensive for the government/taxpayer!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66417103

[98elise]

rjfp1962 said:

I didn't even know these costs existed for the wrongly convicted....! This could get expensive for the government/taxpayer!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66417103

It was ludicrous. People who are rightly convicted for a crime are not charged for their prison food and accommodation, so why should those wrong convicted pay?

[oyster]

But compensation claims have always had an element of offsetting for any cost or loss mitigation.

The simple fact is that the wrongly convicted HAVE saved expenses during their time of wrongful imprisonment - why should this be ignored just for particular compensation cases?

This is yet more ‘Daily Mail’ knee jerk policy making.

[ChevronB19]

oyster said:

But compensation claims have always had an element of offsetting for any cost or loss mitigation.

The simple fact is that the wrongly convicted HAVE saved expenses during their time of wrongful imprisonment - why should this be ignored just for particular compensation cases?

This is yet more ‘Daily Mail’ knee jerk policy making.

This is surely a troll post?

[98elise]

ChevronB19 said:

oyster said:

But compensation claims have always had an element of offsetting for any cost or loss mitigation.

The simple fact is that the wrongly convicted HAVE saved expenses during their time of wrongful imprisonment - why should this be ignored just for particular compensation cases?

This is yet more ‘Daily Mail’ knee jerk policy making.

This is surely a troll post?

Got too be.

There are no benefits to living in prison. You didn't choose to be housed there or eat the food, it was forced on you and you can never get those years back.

[oyster]

98elise said:

ChevronB19 said:

oyster said:

But compensation claims have always had an element of offsetting for any cost or loss mitigation.

The simple fact is that the wrongly convicted HAVE saved expenses during their time of wrongful imprisonment - why should this be ignored just for particular compensation cases?

This is yet more ‘Daily Mail’ knee jerk policy making.

This is surely a troll post?

Got too be.

There are no benefits to living in prison. You didn't choose to be housed there or eat the food, it was forced on you and you can never get those years back.

Isn’t that what the compensation is for?

I’m all for the compensation payment being higher, but uncomfortable with making a different set of rules for different types of compensation.

Those calling me a troll plainly aren’t reading my posts properly.

[gazza285]

ChevronB19 said:

oyster said:

But compensation claims have always had an element of offsetting for any cost or loss mitigation.

The simple fact is that the wrongly convicted HAVE saved expenses during their time of wrongful imprisonment - why should this be ignored just for particular compensation cases?

This is yet more ‘Daily Mail’ knee jerk policy making.

This is surely a troll post?

He has form.

[philv]

oyster said:

98elise said:

ChevronB19 said:

oyster said:

But compensation claims have always had an element of offsetting for any cost or loss mitigation.

The simple fact is that the wrongly convicted HAVE saved expenses during their time of wrongful imprisonment - why should this be ignored just for particular compensation cases?

This is yet more ‘Daily Mail’ knee jerk policy making.

This is surely a troll post?

Got too be.

There are no benefits to living in prison. You didn't choose to be housed there or eat the food, it was forced on you and you can never get those years back.

Isn’t that what the compensation is for?

I’m all for the compensation payment being higher, but uncomfortable with making a different set of rules for different types of compensation.

Those calling me a troll plainly aren’t reading my posts properly.

It's adding insult to injury.
prison costs are irrelevant.
He was forced to stay there.

Compensation should not contain an elementary for this.
It's an unpleasant and hurtful way of sorting it all out.

Imagine losing decades of your life and then this sort of thing.
Even if it balances out it shows no consideration or compassion.

[sugerbear]

It you to to prison and are guilty you dont get charged for your board / lodging / food etc.

If you are innocent you do get charged.

Glad it has been removed.

[Dog Star]

98elise said:

Got too be.

There are no benefits to living in prison. You didn't choose to be housed there or eat the food, it was forced on you and you can never get those years back.

Or spend years of your life eating st food and as a rapist you’re ostracised, having all your food spat in or worse and spending your every waking moment wondering if you’re going to get beaten up or shanked!

You seriously think that this is the sort of experience that you should pay for?!? Are you off your box?!?

[hidetheelephants]

I await the considered argument for employees of NERC being charged for their board and lodging; being in the Antarctic is like a holiday and must be super fun, similarly for NTS employees on St Kilda as it looks lovely when the sun shines.

[pork911]

philv said:

It's adding insult to injury.
prison costs are irrelevant.
He was forced to stay there.

Compensation should not contain an elementary for this.
It's an unpleasant and hurtful way of sorting it all out.

Imagine losing decades of your life and then this sort of thing.
Even if it balances out it shows no consideration or compassion.

Apart from consideration and compassion what should compensation include?

As cold as it necessarily is it is a calculation, so what should and should not be included?

[Gecko1978]

pork911 said:

Apart from consideration and compassion what should compensation include?

As cold as it necessarily is it is a calculation, so what should and should not be included?

In essence you lost life time earnings, faced unwarranted hardship (being locked up on the nonce wing Subject to violence) and finally we need to say sorry.

So he was a security guard let's say 25k x 17 years 425k, then pain an trauma in that time so let's double that so 850k. Finally like everyone who has ever been done for speeding there is a fine to pay just so you know you have done wrong. So let's x by 3 so total 1.275m sounds about right

[pork911]

Gecko1978 said:

pork911 said:

Apart from consideration and compassion what should compensation include?

As cold as it necessarily is it is a calculation, so what should and should not be included?

In essence you lost life time earnings, faced unwarranted hardship (being locked up on the nonce wing Subject to violence) and finally we need to say sorry.

So he was a security guard let's say 25k x 17 years 425k, then pain an trauma in that time so let's double that so 850k. Finally like everyone who has ever been done for speeding there is a fine to pay just so you know you have done wrong. So let's x by 3 so total 1.275m sounds about right

if the job was higher paid would the pain and trauma element still be doubled and the fine element be that x3?

Sounds a bit unfair to lower paid workers and anyway does not appear to allow for age and life stage at the time of imprisonment education, training and career progression?

as for the fine element generally that you propose I am not sure the state feels the pain of that like a motorist or whoever who self funds payment of fines does?

all sounds a bit of a mash up of an incredibly shallow assessment of his loss, arbitrarily multiplied to reflect his pain and trauma (and thereby less than a higher earner) and the apology element growing that inequality

i am all for more heart in the calculation generally but a wet finger in the air approach leads to unintended unfairness

[gazza285]

I’m not sure you can adequately compensate someone for denying them their freedom for so long, he’s now 57, it’s not like he will ever now have a fulfilled life and career, or a family.

[Murph7355]

pork911 said:

if the job was higher paid would the pain and trauma element still be doubled and the fine element be that x3?

Sounds a bit unfair to lower paid workers and anyway does not appear to allow for age and life stage at the time of imprisonment education, training and career progression?

as for the fine element generally that you propose I am not sure the state feels the pain of that like a motorist or whoever who self funds payment of fines does?

all sounds a bit of a mash up of an incredibly shallow assessment of his loss, arbitrarily multiplied to reflect his pain and trauma (and thereby less than a higher earner) and the apology element growing that inequality

i am all for more heart in the calculation generally but a wet finger in the air approach leads to unintended unfairness

You do seem to have a tendency to crop up on threads posing stuff like this...

What would you do? Get off the fence and suggest a structure.

(It 100% should not include a deduction for board and lodgings. There's a far, far stronger case for charging that to people not subject to a miscarriage of justice).

[105.4]

oyster said:

But compensation claims have always had an element of offsetting for any cost or loss mitigation.

The simple fact is that the wrongly convicted HAVE saved expenses during their time of wrongful imprisonment - why should this be ignored just for particular compensation cases?

This is yet more ‘Daily Mail’ knee jerk policy making.

You’ve never been to prison have you?

No amount of money could fully compensate the wrongfully convicted for the true loss that they have suffered.

[Gecko1978]

Murph7355 said:

pork911 said:

if the job was higher paid would the pain and trauma element still be doubled and the fine element be that x3?

Sounds a bit unfair to lower paid workers and anyway does not appear to allow for age and life stage at the time of imprisonment education, training and career progression?

as for the fine element generally that you propose I am not sure the state feels the pain of that like a motorist or whoever who self funds payment of fines does?

all sounds a bit of a mash up of an incredibly shallow assessment of his loss, arbitrarily multiplied to reflect his pain and trauma (and thereby less than a higher earner) and the apology element growing that inequality

i am all for more heart in the calculation generally but a wet finger in the air approach leads to unintended unfairness

You do seem to have a tendency to crop up on threads posing stuff like this...

What would you do? Get off the fence and suggest a structure.

(It 100% should not include a deduction for board and lodgings. There's a far, far stronger case for charging that to people not subject to a miscarriage of justice).

To reply in good faith to Pork911 I tried to give a way of calculating compensation. Loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and then punishment (to the state) so yes for loss of earnings there may be some element linked to earnings at the time but Pork911 is correct a rich person would not get more of thr other 2 parts but using the base in my example seemed reasonable. Either way no one held against their will should repay any costs

[oyster]

Gecko1978 said:

pork911 said:

Apart from consideration and compassion what should compensation include?

As cold as it necessarily is it is a calculation, so what should and should not be included?

In essence you lost life time earnings, faced unwarranted hardship (being locked up on the nonce wing Subject to violence) and finally we need to say sorry.

So he was a security guard let's say 25k x 17 years 425k, then pain an trauma in that time so let's double that so 850k. Finally like everyone who has ever been done for speeding there is a fine to pay just so you know you have done wrong. So let's x by 3 so total 1.275m sounds about right

Correct.

I’d add more. Missing out on house price growth, pension loss etc.
I’d make it much higher.

But then I’d take off lodging/food costs.

Despite what some on here seem to think, I’d award him MORE compensation. But do it properly and not create another loophole to be explored down the line by a compensation chasing lawyer.

[oyster]

105.4 said:

oyster said:

But compensation claims have always had an element of offsetting for any cost or loss mitigation.

The simple fact is that the wrongly convicted HAVE saved expenses during their time of wrongful imprisonment - why should this be ignored just for particular compensation cases?

This is yet more ‘Daily Mail’ knee jerk policy making.

You’ve never been to prison have you?

No amount of money could fully compensate the wrongfully convicted for the true loss that they have suffered.

Then we’re going round in circles.
st happens in life. When it’s our institutions causing such st to happen (such as miscarriage of justice), then we need a documented, legal process to try and fix it.

You’re right that no amount of money can fix this poor man’s loss of freedom. But something has to be followed as he (unfortunately) won’t be the only one.

And kneejerk changes undoubtedly will cause unintended loophole consequences down the line. Who knows which of these, or similar loopholes, will get exploited by an ambulance chasing lawyer.

As I’ve said already (more than once), I think he should receive more compensation.