Wrongly Accused Man Set Free after 30 Years in Max Security

[Ben]

Cases like this get me to embrace the philosphy of, "Rather that 99 guilty men go free than one innocent man is wrongly accused".

Thirty years. People live their lives and retire after thirty years. It doesn't look like he's getting any compensation other than, "Oops, sorry!" either.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/07/chicago-man-who-spent-30-years-behind-bars-leaves-prison-after-murder-case/

[MechAg94]

They didn't give a great deal of info about the original trial and evidence used.  What little they did say made it look like this wasn't one of those "why did they convict him?" cases. 

[RoadKingLarry]

Unless they can find some kind of prosecutor misconduct like with holding exculpatory evidence I don't see him getting any relief.

[Sergeant Bob]

Cases like this get me to embrace the philosphy of, "Rather that 99 guilty men go free than one innocent man is wrongly accused".

I am of the same belief, although convincing most people it is the right thing to do is pretty tough. The problem is that most people don't think it could ever happen to them.

[MechAg94]

I am of the same belief, although convincing most people it is the right thing to do is pretty tough. The problem is that most people don't think it could ever happen to them.

It is a good ideal, but like everything else, the devil is in the details. 

[RevDisk]

It is a good ideal, but like everything else, the devil is in the details. 

Not really.  Government has "unlimited" funds at putting you behind bars.  You don't. 

I'd really like to know why public defenders don't have the same exact budget as the prosecutors.

[MechAg94]

Not really.  Government has "unlimited" funds at putting you behind bars.  You don't. 

I'd really like to know why public defenders don't have the same exact budget as the prosecutors.

Giving any lawyer an unlimited budget for money and people is a mistake. 

And, yes the devil is in the details always.  You can't just say "make it so".  How do you modify the current system and/or court procedures to effect this plan of preventing 100% of "innocent" people from getting jailed?  Do you just want to make sure "reasonable doubt" is actually used or do you want to set the standard higher for convictions? 

[SADShooter]

This brings to mind a question I've pondered for some time: How/why did district/prosecuting attorney become an elective or appointive office as a stepping stone to higher elective office, with the result that success measured by conviction rate is the means to career advancement? Many of these wrongful conviction cases seem driven by overzealous prosecutors and police seeking conviction of the obvious or convenient suspect rather than to determine the truth. Honest error seems the exception.

Would the situation improve if that incentive were removed?

[Jamisjockey]

This brings to mind a question I've pondered for some time: How/why did district/prosecuting attorney become an elective or appointive office as a stepping stone to higher elective office, with the result that success measured by conviction rate is the means to career advancement? Many of these wrongful conviction cases seem driven by overzealous prosecutors and police seeking conviction of the obvious or convenient suspect rather than to determine the truth. Honest error seems the exception.

Would the situation improve if that incentive were removed?

Worse yet, many serious crimes are plead down so that the prosecutor can claim a higher conviction rate, rather then risk a jury not liking their case.

[Perd Hapley]

Giving any lawyer an unlimited budget for money and people is a mistake. 

And, yes the devil is in the details always.  You can't just say "make it so".  How do you modify the current system and/or court procedures to effect this plan of preventing 100% of "innocent" people from getting jailed?  Do you just want to make sure "reasonable doubt" is actually used or do you want to set the standard higher for convictions? 

They've given us the model. Every time someone is acquitted, you let 99 convicts out of prison.

[MechAg94]

They've given us the model. Every time someone is acquitted, you let 99 convicts out of prison.

[RevDisk]

Giving any lawyer an unlimited budget for money and people is a mistake. 

And, yes the devil is in the details always.  You can't just say "make it so".  How do you modify the current system and/or court procedures to effect this plan of preventing 100% of "innocent" people from getting jailed?  Do you just want to make sure "reasonable doubt" is actually used or do you want to set the standard higher for convictions? 

Hold prosecutors to published ethical standards, subject to review. Match prosecutor budgets to public defenders.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Match prosecutor budgets to public defenders.
   


the prosecution tries all cases not just the poor folk  or the folks faking poor  that metric would not work

[Northwoods]

Match prosecutor budgets to public defenders.
   


the prosecution tries all cases not just the poor folk  or the folks faking poor  that metric would not work

I'm OK with that.  We should be spending as much or more money (per case) helping poor folks (and the occasional faking poor folks) defend themselves than prosecuting them.

[RevDisk]

Match prosecutor budgets to public defenders.

the prosecution tries all cases not just the poor folk  or the folks faking poor  that metric would not work

Doesn't have to be 1:1. But I'd also be fine with public defenders having more funding per case than the prosecution. And it's not hard to fake being poor if you're facing a criminal case. Most people don't have $20k or more in their savings account. If they're upper lower class or anywhere in the middle class, they'll loot their 401k, leverage their house or otherwise financially cripple themselves.

Hence why plea bargains work so well. "We don't care if you're guilty or not. That's a nice house you have there. Be a shame if something happened to it... Why not take 3 months in prison instead of making a fuss?"

Ordinarily, I'm as libertarian as any other rational decent human being that doesn't want to spend government money. However, I'm not an anarchist and believe courts are a legitimate function of government. Nothing wrong with making sure they are kept in check. I also do not believe that the government side should have significant financial advantages when it comes to deciding guilt or innocence.

I'm never happy with increasing government expenditures, but I'm also not happy with government tyranny.

[Ned Hamford]

As a working defense attorney I am all for more money being thrown my way but at the end of the day the defense can just say Nu-uh.  The prosecution has to prove every single element beyond a reasonable doubt.  Its not so much a matter of being able to match resources, as keeping the other side honest.  If you tip that scale, well, if you expect the defense to do the job of the police and their infrastructure, you will see even further sliding of responsibility, shifting and sharing of blame.  If everyone is to blame, no one is ect.  

There are good reasons the other side has to share every relevant thing.  A mentor of mine whose been a practicing defense attorney for near 40 years has only found it necessary to involve an investigator less than a half dozen times in his career.  Alternate views for 'expert testimony' is another matter.  A well prepped attorney can cross examine and destroy a weak expert... we have books with step by step walk through on how to do it in fact.  

There are high ethical standards for prosecutors.  When it slides, pillory them.  Get new folks in that won't do it and will do their honest best to correct things.  The DA is one of those the buck stops here jobs.  One of their underlings going rogue, that's on them to kick em to the curb.  

:Ned daydreams about a prosecutor getting the boot and the opening in the local DA's office that would bring:

Edit: And a bit more on topic for the OP... I tend to think if you steal a man's life like that, there is moral obligation to at least set him up for the start of a new one.  But hey, a moral response from the government, I won't be holding my breath. 

[zxcvbob]

Have they sent him a bill yet for the 30 years room and board, since he shouldn't have been there?   

[RevDisk]

Ned, I actually have an honest question. What would be the best way to disincentivize blanket plea bargaining?

[Balog]

Ned, I actually have an honest question. What would be the best way to disincentivize blanket plea bargaining?

Not Ned, but I will do a bit of thinking out loud here.

1. Prosecutor is an elected office, high conviction rate is generally seen favorably by the voting public, blanket plea bargaining helps that. So that's an rea to look at.

2. At lower levels it's not the "justice" system, it's the "local .gov revenue generation system." Tying finding people guilty of crimes to there being enough money to pay the salary of the cops, judges, and prosecutors seems like a guarantee for corruption to me.

3. We have so many BS laws that the courts are flooded with more cases than it is physically possible to prosecute. Cutting it back to mala in se crimes would reduce that burden.

[brimic]

These can sometimes be tricky.
In years past, overzealous prosecutors did put away people with thin or even manufactured proof- often because they know he perp did the crime or other crimes but they couldn't be proven by hard evidence.

We had an example of this in my state within the last 10 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Avery
The man was found innocent by DNA after spending some 16 years in prison and was released- it was fairly clear that he was railroaded by the prosecution of the time. Within a year of his release, a young photographer who Avery invited to his family's junkyard to take pictures of a car for sale, was raped, murdered, hacked to pieces and burned by Avery.

[MechAg94]

Should the Govt pay your legal bills if you are acquitted?

[Ned Hamford]

Should the Govt pay your legal bills if you are acquitted?

Law of unintended consequences here.  Gov foots bill, suddenly its a backdoor option for funneling funds to certain groups.  Rather like how the ACLU brings endless fringe cases [ten commandments in a court ect] as a source of funding. 

I think crowd sourcing is the best bet.  Something outrageous happen, hop on the tv and the news, let the public outrage compensate you.  [This works best if you are good looking or otherwise highly sympathetic]

 

[Ned Hamford]

Ned, I actually have an honest question. What would be the best way to disincentivize blanket plea bargaining?

Lower penalties till the punishment fits the crime; increase funding to courts, DA, and Public Defenders. 

[zxcvbob]

I think crowd sourcing is the best bet.  Something outrageous happen, hop on the tv and the news, let the public outrage compensate you.  [This works best if you are good looking or otherwise highly sympathetic]

 

But don't start raising funds until *after* your bail hearing 

[CNYCacher]

Should the Govt pay your legal bills if you are acquitted?

Kind of like how if you sue someone and lose, you may have to pay their legal bills?

I like this idea