• jettrscga@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    How would this make them think twice? There weren’t any consequences for them for unlawful arrest and they still got to inconvenience protesters.

    • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝A
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      It was going to be the high level conviction that would make the news and be a shot across the bows of anyone else who protested and it failed, miserably. The CPS and everyone else involved are going to have to consider each new case now because the chances of conviction don’t look good.

      they still got to inconvenience protesters

      Most protestors these days are prepared for inconvenience (some go out of their way to courter arrest in order to make a bigger splash), it’s a whole different ballgame if you could be looking at a criminal conviction for not doing much at all.

    • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s the CPS that may think twice about the prospect of prosecution, and the police are going to be pretty loathe to arrest if prosecutions are unsuccessful,

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 months ago

        What? Police have no issue arresting people regardless of the conviction possibilities. They literally could not care less. Arresting people is just part of their day at the office.

        • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          That’s really not how it works. If there’s little prospect of prosecution they simply aren’t going to bother with the time expense and resources to arrest.

          • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            5 months ago

            Perhaps under normal circumstances, but arrest alone is enough of a deterrent for a lot of people. Plus some cops will arrest people just because the people pissed them off. They know no criminal charges will come of it, but they also know it’ll inconvenience the person for at least 4 hours and ruin their day.

            What time and expense? The cops and the jail staff are there regardless of arresting people or not. It costs them nothing additional to arrest you. The expense is part of their regular operational budget.

              • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                What I’m saying is that it doesn’t cost them any more money to go out and arrest a bunch of people, than it does to sit at a donut shop stuffing their faces. They get paid either way, as do the people running the jails. Their budget isn’t affected by what they do during the course of a shift.

                • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  They have a certain amount of money that they have to spent on operational work. The police and crime commissioners/mayor depending on region absolutely look at arrests v conviction rates and will give the Chief Constable a hard time if they are arresting people without hope of conviction, telling them instead to focus on priorities. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if we don’t see the criteria for arrest to be tweaked a bit.

      • GreatAlbatrossOPMA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Just think about all that paperwork. My pen’s running out…

    • jtb
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Because the government has to pay her legal fees perhaps.