Roughly yes. The rationale is that you were not "wrongfully" in jail. You were held in the jail because prosecutors believed you'd be found guilty of a crime (which you subsequently were found innocent of) and the court believed that you were either too dangerous or too likely to abscond if you weren't held against your will.
In principle if you can show that these beliefs were unreasonable (not just wrong, but not even reasonable beliefs for the court officials to hold) you might be able to get somewhere, but I suspect a decent lawyer would tell you that this bar is too high.
Conviction rate for people who go to trial in the UK is very high, because the "Full Code Test" for prosecutors tells them to never prosecute people unless they're convinced the evidence they have will support a conviction for each charge they specify.
Unfortunately, yes. It's the same in both US and UK. You can sue the state for loss of income/whatever, but those cases are not always successful - all they need to prove is that they had reasonable reason to keep you in jail, even if you were found innocent at the end.
Maybe, don't do things that a reasonable person would consider makes you likely beyond reasonable doubt to have committed a serious crime? Or is that too great an expectation?
Would be interesting to read some real life info and stats on this.
If we draw a line at "felony", well... how many people wind up in jail for inability to make bail for misdemeanors? And for how long? I'm pretty sure you can google that kind of thing.
Also, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the legal grounds for conviction, not arrest. "Probable cause" is the grounds for arrest, a far lower standard.
This subthread is UK specific, so the number in jail for non-payment of bail is zero.
Probable cause isn't a UK test -- we use [reasonable] suspicion -- but one needs far more evidence than that to retain someone in prison. CPS don't take cases to trial without an expectation of success; non serious crimes (and some serious ones) don't result in prison so aren't pertinent.
Suspicion is an even lower bar, but the charge officer won't even admit someone into custody without evidence (though that evidence has a far lower bar than is required for conviction).
So you get out 24 hrs later, the police caught the perp who just happened to match your description and locality. Surely the downside is just part of society functioning, do you really need compensating? Legal protection for your job, seems like it should be in place though.
Your "compensation" is a functioning legal system.
You might lose a job by police stopping traffic after a RTA and so being delayed by several hours. Should you get compensation for that, or should you just accept it as part of a functioning road network/emergency service?
Because people are always arrested for things they've done, not by mistake? Heck, why not do away with trials? If the police think someone did it, lock them up for good!
If you're locked away for an extended period for a serious crime then, presently in the UK, my conjecture is that you're probably close to the crime -- I mean you're an associate of the criminals without necessarily being an accomplice; or an already convicted criminal; or guilty of minor crimes if you're being held on remand (https://www.gov.uk/charged-crime/remand) in most cases?
In the UK IIUC there's a 85% arrest-to-conviction rate across all crimes.
> ...my conjecture is that you're probably close to the crime...
So you are OK with people's lives being fucked up just because they've been accused of something? You do realize that anyone can accuse anyone of anything anytime, right? There's a reason we go through investigations and trials.
You don't get locked up on remand just because someone made an accusation against you. People making specious accusations do get locked up sometimes.
To your question: obviously not. That statement discredits you as a genuine enquirer. Strawmen and incredulity don't really help us make progress here.
Please point out the strawman in my argument. I currently do not see one, and your statement discredits you as a genuine enquirer. False claims and incredulity don't really help us make progress here.
> You don't get locked up on remand just because someone made an accusation against you.
Yes, you can. Once accused, you then go to trial to see if the accusation is correct.
What statistics do you want to see? How many people make false accusations? How many people are arrested on false accusations? How many people use "guilty by association" logic because they can't be arsed to figure out the real story? How many lives are ruined because you would rather we just bypass the judicial system?
