Meet Tatay Carding. He is currently detained in a BJMP jail. He had been in jail for 16 years while undergoing trial. He has never been convicted. He is now a senior citizen with multiple ailments.
He has shown good behavior and with GCTA of 14 years, he can already be released for having served the maximum imposable penalty of a life sentence (30 years). But he should be convicted first before he can avail of the Release through GCTA.
7 of the 8 charges filed against him had been dismissed and he was declared not guilty. But should he be acquitted of all the offenses charged against him, the Supreme Court ruled that he is not entitled for any compensation for unjust detention.
When individuals are detained during their criminal trials, they endure conditions similar to those of convicted prisoners. They lose their freedom, are kept in overcrowded cells, and receive the same minimal amount of food. Both unconvicted detainees and convicted prisoners have families who suffer due to their incarceration, face humiliation, and are deprived of the ability to earn an income and support their loved ones. The degradation experienced by detainees and prisoners is practically the same.
The psychological toll on these individuals is significant. The uncertainty of their fate, coupled with the harsh conditions of detention, can lead to severe mental health issues. Anxiety, depression, and feelings of hopelessness are common among detainees, mirroring the experiences of convicted prisoners. The social stigma associated with being detained, regardless of the outcome of the trial, further exacerbates their suffering and impacts their reintegration into society.
When individuals are declared innocent, courts worldwide recognize the harm caused and governments provide compensation for unjust imprisonment. This compensation acknowledges the damage done by imprisonment. The intention behind this compensation is to provide some form of redress for the loss of freedom, the emotional distress, and the disruption of lives caused by wrongful imprisonment.
It is thus disheartening that the Supreme Court differentiates between detainees who were undergoing trial and acquitted, and convicted prisoners who were acquitted on appeal. Both groups suffered the harshness of imprisonment and were eventually acquitted due to insufficient evidence (one at trial, the other at appeal). The suffering during the criminal trial process is identical for both, yet the court's distinction implies otherwise: the innocent detainees don’t deserve compensation and thus no harm was done to them, but the innocent prisoners were harmed by imprisonment and thus deserve compensation. This differentiation fails to acknowledge the profound and similar impact of incarceration on both groups.
Additionally, the Supreme Court did not consider the fact that many pretrial detainees remain in jail while undergoing trial for extended periods. There are numerous cases where detainees have spent 10 to 20 years in jail without a conviction. These individuals endure the same hardships as convicted prisoners. The lengthy pretrial detention not only strips them of their liberty but also subjects them to prolonged exposure to inhumane conditions and the accompanying psychological torment. Yet, if they are acquitted and found not guilty, there is no compensation for the harm inflicted on them.
This lack of compensation for pretrial detainees who are eventually acquitted highlights a significant gap in the justice system. It underscores the need for legislative reform to ensure that all individuals who are wrongfully imprisoned, regardless of their conviction status, receive adequate redress for the injustices they have suffered. Equitable treatment in the eyes of the law should extend to all who have been deprived of their freedom unjustly, acknowledging the universal harm caused by wrongful detention and imprisonment.
Comments