Let’s say you’re arrested for a crime. Because of the seriousness of the crime the bail is set too high (or is not set at all) so you are held jail until the trial is finished. Now let’s say the verdict is determined 6 months after you were first arrested, and you are found not guilty. Meanwhile, you’ve lost your job, and upset your life in other ways as well.
Are you entitled to compensation for the time you were imprisoned? If so, what? If not, doesn’t this strike you as more than a little unfair?
Also, what about if someone is convicted and then found not guilty on appeal? Are you automatically compensated? If not, can you sue for it?
Well, no. You aren’t compensated if bail is set too high and then you are let go. But, your job can’t fire you or has to rehire you if they let you go while your trial was going on. Look at OJ. He go nothing after being found Not Guilty and being in jail for a pretty stinkin’ long time(not that I feel too bad for him).
Usually the only time bail is set too high is when it’s a violent or very serious crime, especially if that person has a previous record. You can understand that until the truth is determined, it’s better to not have that person out where they can commit more crimes. If it was me, I’d understand, though I doubt I’d find myself accused of a crime that I wouldn’t be able to post bail for (and that I didn’t actually commit in the first place).
actually, the info on the job may be incorrect depending on circumstances.
If you are goverend by a union contract there should be language in the contract (usually is) about leaves of absence, and what would happen in these kind of cases.
If you work in an “at will” state, (as MI is), an employer, unless there is contract language to the contrary, can legally fire you without stating a reason. Most employers are NOT required to give (in essence) a leave of absence and hold the job open for you.
As far as compensation, I know that if you are falsely convicted (in some cases) people have been compenstated. The book “Actual Innocence” by Scheck, Neufeld and Dwyer detail several such cases.
I don’t ** think ** you are legally considered to have been “wrongfully imprisoned” in the case you detail. The state may arrest anyone, but has to show ‘probable cause’, there’s a preliminary hearing in which a judge would review the evidence and determine if there’s sufficient evidence that a crime was committed and that you did it, bail applications are NOT always granted (if the state can show a strong case for either flight risk or potential danger to the community).
Some years ago in Virginia there was a man who had been imprisoned for about 10 years for rape. He was acquitted on an appeal (DNA evidence, I believe), and I do seem to recall they gave him $10,000 on release, but I’m not entirely confident in my memory on that one; does anyone else remember this? Of course, that doesn’t indicate that it was mandatory for the state to give him any compensation. Also, that’s a damn small compensation for losing 10 years of your life.
Search the page for Edward Honaker. It doesn’t mention anything about compensation. Of course, even if they did compensate him, it wouldn’t demonstrate that wrongfully imprisoned people are required to be compensated in any way.
To contradict c_goat, the seriousness of the crime is usually not a factor in the setting of bail. They usually consider two factors: (1) how likely is it that the defendant will flee (which explains OJ), or (2) the defendant is considered a threat to society.