It is a commonplace that when someone is charged with a crime they lose their job and thus their income. When such a person is vindicated by the legal system, should the charging entity - usually but not necessarily the State - recompense the person for their lost income?
Yes. But governments/police don’t even apologize to innocent people they put on death row for decades. So good luck with this reparations idea.
And furthermore, your idea gives governments the incentive to never overturn convictions, even in the most egregious instances. So, keep an eye out for those unforeseen consequences.
It also de-incentivizes arresting more wealthy people.
It disincentivizes arresting anyone. So yes, it’s a good idea. If this kind of payment started to make up a sizable chunk of spending, folks might reconsider on what grounds they want the government to arrest someone.
If you get arrested and lose your job, why would you be recompensed by the state? Shouldn’t you be recompensed by your employer, and wouldn’t it depend on why they fired you if you collected anything or not?
The state’s duty is to provide due process. If they don’t do that, sure, sue for damages.
Regards,
Shodan
Certainly not in an employment at will state, unless the worker has a contract or collective bargaining agreement that provides otherwise.
Until recently justice was very swift, a matter of days or weeks; now it can take a year or more to even get to court.
Because the state has caused you damage. Think of it as eminent domain for your time.
Remember that this would only apply to people who were found not guilty or against whom charges were dropped.
It is inevitable that the prosecution of justice has some costs. Right now those costs are disproportionately born by unlucky innocent people who get ground up in the system.