But how could it be avoided? The police don't operate on 'guilty' and 'innocent', but on 'suspect' - even if they do everything right, they'll occasionally arrest someone that will later turn out to be innocent. If they're responding to an emergency, they simply don't have time to determine guilt with much accuracy, and are just focusing on protecting possible victims. And if they're arresting someone being prosecuted for some crime, well it's unavoidable that occasionally someone won't be found guilty for what they stood trial for - that's the whole point of a trial.
However, I agree that if that should happen, the detained should be compensated for the harm they suffered, even if the police (and prosecutors!) acted reasonably.
I should clarify that I don't mean to imply the US police and public prosecutors meet these reasonablenes criteria - from what I hear, the deck is stacked heavily against anyone being prosecuted for a felony, guilty or not.
What about if the police had a dedicated fund for arrests.
For the employer - they aren't allowed to sack the employee, but administrative costs of finding temp staff can be claimed from the fund.
For the arrested, all cost of living expenses are covered until trial, but should they be found guilty, this becomes a CPI indexed, interest free debt.
Any pre-conviction incarceration costs where accused is found innocent are also paid by the fund.
This seems to grab most of the data in one account. But does also seem to add a big incentive to find people guilty...
That's not always bad policing. The police aren't in the business of determining guild or innocence. The courts are. There will be innocent people who are arrested.
But I don't see how preventing companies from being able to fire people solely because of an arrest actually costs them anything.
However, I agree that if that should happen, the detained should be compensated for the harm they suffered, even if the police (and prosecutors!) acted reasonably.
I should clarify that I don't mean to imply the US police and public prosecutors meet these reasonablenes criteria - from what I hear, the deck is stacked heavily against anyone being prosecuted for a felony, guilty or not.