If someone breaks out of jail, but is later found innocent of their crime... (1 Viewer)

[Crates]

The question is: If someone manages to break out of prison, but is instantly found innocent of the crime they were sent to jail for, would they be charged for escaping out of prison?

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Ten years ago / In 1972, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... The A-Team.

 

[katie tully]

Not sure, but I think if they escape from lawful custody they can get in trouble? Even if they're innocent, as long as they're lawfully detained?

No idea

 

[Lara1986]

The question is: If someone manages to break out of prison, but is instantly found innocent of the crime they were sent to jail for, would they be charged for escaping out of prison?

I don't know of the legal authority on this issue, but logically, I would say yes as you were still required to remain in prison whilst your sentence was standing. However I would think that a Court would not impose a sentence on them given the circumstances.

 

[Crates]

I don't know of the legal authority on this issue, but logically, I would say yes as you were still required to remain in prison whilst your sentence was standing. However I would think that a Court would not impose a sentence on them given the circumstances.

Yes, but in hindsight, it would be seen that said people were never really in the wrong, and so logically, they shouldn't be persecuted.

 

[Lara1986]

Yes, but in hindsight, it would be seen that said people were never really in the wrong, and so logically, they shouldn't be persecuted.

Yes and no i suppose in a way - that is similar to what I meant as far as being charged but not sentenced. Eg they may acknowledge that what the person did was unlawful but would not impose any sort of sanction against them so it would have the same effect as not being prosecuted at all.

Yes you should not have been in jail to start with, but that doesn't prevent the fact that you were ordered by a court to be in jail thus you would be going against a court's order, i.e. acting illegally, if you were to break out.

Logcally - that's the only way the criminal justice system can work otherwise, you'd have people breaking out of jails and custody all over the place pending appeals

 

[Marmalade.]

Yes and no i suppose in a way - that is similar to what I meant as far as being charged but not sentenced. Eg they may acknowledge that what the person did was unlawful but would not impose any sort of sanction against them so it would have the same effect as not being prosecuted at all.

Yes you should not have been in jail to start with, but that doesn't prevent the fact that you were ordered by a court to be in jail thus you would be going against a court's order, i.e. acting illegally, if you were to break out.

Logcally - that's the only way the criminal justice system can work otherwise, you'd have people breaking out of jails and custody all over the place pending appeals

that's what i think too.

although are there two contexts where this could happen
a) after arrest but before trial, if not granted bail: why would someone run before conviction unless they are guilty? i don't see someone who runs subsequently being acquitted.

b) after conviction but before a successful appeal
why would you run if you're appealing? again, that doesn't make you seem innocent and appealing seems unnecessary if you plan to run

unlikely scenario, i think. but i'd say it is breaking a law. your imprisonment is not unlawful just because you are acquitted or have your conviction set aside later on. besides, you'll be found not guilty, not 'innocent', so the court will never recognise, as a fact, that you didn't commit the crime you were imprisoned for. (i don't know how that fits in with convicted criminals getting compensation when, e.g. someone else comes forward as having done it. anyone know?)

 

[banco55]

This happened on at least one occasion in the US and he was sentenced to time served from memory.

 

[jackmurray1989]

When people are held in remand before trial (refused bail), the judge takes the time they spent already in custody into account when determining sentencing.

Maybe if the DPP decided they should be tried for jail break the judge might factor in the time they spent in jail for the crime that they were previously acquitted of.

 

[cem]

I decided to ask my father about this overnight.

He did practise as a lawyer for over 40 years but is now retired.

His response was that the person would be tried with 'escaping lawful custody' but a good defence lawyer would point out the fact that the person was found innocent of the initial crime and a sensible magistrate would, in fact, sentence them to the time already spend in prison.

They would have a conviction recorded as they had defied a court order - of imprisonment - but with a notation that they shouldn't have been sentenced to begin with.

 

[Frigid]

His response was that the person would be tried with 'escaping lawful custody' but a good defence lawyer would point out the fact that the person was found innocent of the initial crime and a sensible magistrate would, in fact, sentence them to the time already spend in prison.

nice answer.

but i wonder whether prosecuting authorities would prosecute in the circumstances?

 

[RogueAcademic]

nice answer.

but i wonder whether prosecuting authorities would prosecute in the circumstances?

No, I can't imagine that the DPP would further waste State resources and time over this. The criminal justice system is already overloaded as it is.

There wouldn't be much argument for specific deterrence in this case. There may be an argument for general deterrence but, again, I don't think the DPP would spend any more resources and time on a case like this.

 

[AsyLum]

 

[nikolas]

Ten years ago / In 1972, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... The A-Team.

I loled

 

[lala2]

I see. So basically, by convicting them of escaping lawful custody but writing a note next to it that they shouldn't have been sentenced to begin with, the moral of the story is, don't right a wrong with another wrong. It would still be a conviction though, wouldn't it? What if they wanted to go overseas and they are asked to declare any criminal convictions, would that still count?

 

[Crates]

\thread

 

[Crates]

yep

 

[advanced sam]

i think if they were innocent there is no harm. if they showed other criminals, however, their escape plan, well...

 

[RogueAcademic]

negro

haha

 

[GolfPunk]

Ten years ago / In 1972, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... The A-Team.

or Hamish and Andy