Lara1986 said:



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 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 Click to expand...

that's what i think too.although are there two contexts where this could happena) 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 appealwhy would you run if you're appealing? again, that doesn't make you seem innocent and appealing seems unnecessary if you plan to rununlikely 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?)