How inmate Michael Morton lost 25 years of his life
cnn.com
cnn.com
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rat...
Given the huge number of Prisoners who have been on death row and exonerated, there must have been quite a few in the past prior to technologies like DNA testing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution
Note - this doesn't even include those who were innocent, but not provably so.
For example, New York had a death penalty in 1995 that was never used and declared unconstitutional in 2004. Since the death row has been disbanded by executive order and it is unlikely executions will ever take place in NY again.
43 immates were executed in 2012.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Uni...
I was more pondering, how many people in the past have been executed wrongly by the united states.
A quick google search suggests that 14,634 were executed in the period 1608-1987. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions.php
Quoth the article: "We all felt so strongly that this was justice for Christine and that we were doing the right thing," says Mark Landrum, who was the jury foreman.
Righteous fury is the worst enemy of justice.
[1] http://www.texastribune.org/2012/10/19/state-bar-seeks-disci...
The problem is that people let outrage over the seriousness of the crime guide both their evaluation of evidence and demand for punishment. Their want their offended sense of justice to be assuaged, but this leads to greater and greater injustice, as people are wrongly convicted and sentences climb ever higher.
More to the point, without consequences for their actions, prosecutors have an incentive to do this stuff.
So, I think both tactics are required.
Aside from an interest in Justice, why would anyone defend Ken Anderson's behavior? Convicting innocent people of crimes is only in the interests of prosecutors and criminals. Conversely, every citizen is at risk from malicious wrongful prosecution.
I think what they (some people from the South) believe is that police, prosecutors, and judges are well-meaning professionals and that they conduct their duty with the intention to "do what is right" and with some degree of professionalism.
When a random citizen calls for the death penalty for some accused individual, they are always doing so with the caveat that the accused is actually guilty of the crime. They are saying "baby raping murders need to die" not necessarily that "smelly bums need to get framed up" or in the case of Morton "innocent fathers". What person (besides policemen and prosecutors) wants an innocent man convicted?
The problem is not human nature (well, maybe it is, but that's not a problem we can reliably solve). The problem is that prosecutors, judges, and cops are themselves human, and that there is little to safeguard us all from their mistakes, and even worse, they are incentive-ized to make these types of mistakes.
It seems reasonable to you because you are in fact judging this case emotionally, not reasonably. Your empathy towards the victim causes you to want revenge, believing it to be justice.
Oh, and by gunning for Mr Morton, the actual murderer went free, and killed someone else.
This is something that should be told again and again and again to the juries in murder trials.
I think it's just as much a scandal that the jury convicted Morton without substantial evidence as that the prosecutor withheld potentially exonerating evidence.
That's a pretty bold assumption. And it happens to be wrong in this case.
I'm not focused on the 25 years, but rather on the equivalence between the sentences. If a law were to be proposed, that the sentence for prosecutorial misconduct be comparable to the sentences so wrongfully achieved, it would have my vote regardless of the emotional context.
> "Never mind the consequences, like incentivizing prosecutors to avoid long sentences..."
That is indeed part of the point! If we can agree that sentencing has spiraled out of control in this country (and I suspect we can), then perhaps a strong disincentive for misbehavior within the system would be beneficial?
> "Do you really believe 10/15/20/25 years in this case would make a difference?"
And do you think 10 days in prison is going to make a difference?
To answer your question, yes, I believe serious consequences for prosecutorial misconduct will make a difference. Making the sentence for malicious prosecution comparable to the sentence suffered by the victim is simply a guideline that I personally would find reasonable.
EDIT: I should have said "I would find reasonable in this particular case, i.e., that of prosecutorial misconduct". I agree that talionic justice (eye-for-an-eye) leads to gross dysfunctional if put to general use. But I'm not convinced that makes it inappropriate in all cases.
I'll look later to see if anyone analysed this in real cases, but my intuition is that there's some limit where it doesn't make a difference anymore whether you add more years - only guarantees that the jailed person has no way to go back to any kind of reasonable life afterwards.
More to the point, the prosecutor is guilty, which is why he received 10 days in jail. I'm expressing that that should have been a larger punishment for the anguish he caused, and admitted to. On top of that, this time they have a stack of evidence, enough to exonerate someone, and the prosecutors actions got another person killed.
Very different circumstances, in my opinion. I do agree with your final sentence, however.
The jury system cannot handle them being liable for imprisoning the wrong people, unfortunately. That's why we have all these rules in place in our legal system. The prosecutor was the one who made the decision to willingly withhold important evidence and lie to the jury to get the conviction, so I personally think he is culpable.
Oh, and by doing so, the actual killer went free, and murdered someone else. :(
>He might have withheld evidence but in the end it's the jury who found him guilty.
You need to seriously rethink that statement. How could a jury be expected reach a correct solution when exculpatory evidence was hidden from them?
http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-one?full...
http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-two?full...
I remember going with my parents (I was in high school) to see my grandfather and deal with the hospital -- he had been hospitalized for a reason I don't recall and they found that his mind was damaged to the point that they couldn't overlook it. He said hello, tried to make small talk: how are things, do you have a girlfriend, any interesting developments in your life. Small talk is not one of my skills. I had nothing to say; I very often have nothing to say. And he turned and started admonishing my parents for forcing me to come: "He doesn't want to be here. We live in different worlds."
It hurt, very badly. I was there because I wanted to be there.
I can't imagine, even after twelve years, telling your father that visiting him twice a year is a waste of your time. What a staggering blow. No matter what Marylee believed (clearly, in this case, that Morton was guilty), the decent thing to do would have been to not discuss it with his son.
Genuine questions. Currently it seems like a competition. This isn't competitive ground, as much as I see lawyers essentially competing over number of clears/convictions. This is about people's lives!
Ken Andersen was allowed to resign as district judge, and also to resign from the Texas State Bar, he was given a 10-day sentence for a criminal contempt charge for which he served 5 days in jail.
link http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2013/09/from-too-littl...
another link http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/why-michael-morton%E2%80%9...
Sorry not enough. This is one place that "an eye for an eye" should be used. Screw Ghandi's opinion on the subject. The guy was an asshole through and through who ruined two people's already ruined lives.
Yet revenge seems to be the first motivation of most people. Making things worse instead of making things better.
The prosecutor should have that on his shoulders as well.
That happened. The actual murderer killed another woman before he was caught. The cost to society is not just 25 years of this dudes life but add one dead woman to the list.
Of course you can't prove that merely exonerating one dude would somehow have automagically resulted in the cops catching the actual killer.
Our motivation to not do things is driven by consequences.
When the balance of power exists so that those who determine consequences for people can do so out of self-interest, they need to be held up to the same standards and face equal consequences themselves.
The prosecutor should have a sentence passed against him to ensure others do not follow suit with "$500 and 500 hours community service, oh and I can still be a legal consultant for a corporation - I can accept that risk for some gain"...
I'd say it's much better to change the system so that it's not in a prosecutor's self interest to convict as many people as possible.
You can only hold a prosecutor to a "perfect standard" if they have the power to ruin a person's life through self-interest. That perfect standard should only be enforced the other way as well in the circumstance that they do something wrong on this scale.
These positions attract people who wish to be wealthy or powerful. This might not be the case if they have to live up to their own standards.
Examples should be made of both sides.
Other people were certain, after reading some newspaper articles, that Michael Morton murdered his wife because she would not submit to him sexually, and the most important thing to them was that he be punished more severely. Their slogan: "an eye for an eye".
See the similarity now?
In prison, Morton had to put up with forced manual labor, filthy and inhumane conditions, fight off a rapist, and lose 25 years of his life.
Anderson had to do 5 days in jail and pay a $500 fine. He should be drug behind a vehicle for several miles or until the tow rope falls off. I understand that sounds extreme, but those most powerful among us with the power to destroy whole lives on a whim should face the full brutality of society.
[1] usually a prosecutor.
His career was destroyed. That seems like a large enough disincentive to me. I cannot imagine that worse punishment would lead to better outcomes.
It seems to me rather that if you want to fight this you should look elsewhere. Punishing this person harder doesn’t seem like a solution to me.
It's not a big deal for him as a prosecutor. Perhaps it'll be uncomfortable for a bit but the real story is:
$500 fine. Acceptable risk.
500 hours community service. Acceptable risk.
Struck off... Acceptable risk.
Why?
His career was certainly not destroyed. He can quite happily fall into a cosy job in a corporate back office as a legal consultant through his contact network and still get a nice pension.
I’m pretty sure that if prosecutors knew that they will be punished like that and if they knew that punishment is somewhat likely they would rather not do it.
Consistency and a high detection rate seem like the most promising ways to improve this, not the severity of the punishment.
But Americans are obsessed with their draconian punishment. Nothing new here.
His career is not lost. This is a minor setback. If you've ever worked in corporate law departments, you'll find lots of struck off legal professionals.
They still play golf on the same courses, still get paid the same. Their little empires just move.
Do you think we should reduce the length of our sentences for burglary, for instance?
"To give an example, the average burglary sentence in the United States is 16 months, compared to 5 months in Canada and 7 months in England"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rat...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta...
This part is what people are usually talking about:
Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges.
By the way, I understand that the "three strikes" laws have had some unintended consequences and should be revisited.
It can be a snowball effect as well, putting people in prison early for say, drug use at a young age, creates a prison culture, where the person keeps going back to prison. If that person didn't go to prison in the first place they might not be put in a position to keep breaking the law. This is all really a guess on my part, but I feel that it might be the case.
I don't mean to turn this into an atheism debate, but personally, as someone who is an atheist, I find it fascinating how people still manage to have faith in God after such a case even after they spent 25 years of their life for a crime they did not commit. Don't get me wrong - the faith people have really amazes me and in a way, it helps keep them sane but it is fascinating nevertheless.
Easier to deal with for some people, rather than accepting the inherent randomness that exists in life.
source: I was a correctional officer in Texas for a couple of years.
That was said in 1765, I think we are regressing. Power hungry police and prosecutors are getting worse. They only care about making arrests and getting convictions, innocence doesn't matter. I am surprised that the prosecutor was actually charged and then convicted.
Also, why would you be surprised that the prosecutor was charged and convicted? Wouldn't it stand by your reasoning that the other "power hungry prosecutors who only caring about making arrests and getting convictions" would jump at the chance to convict him?
Based on your posts here, I'm getting the feeling that you are okay with the criminal justice system in the USA. You ask a lot of questions, I want to know what your stance is (honestly, I do!).
If you take a look at this[0], you can see that per capita incarceration in the US has grown a lot, especially over the past 30 years. So its not a baseless accusation we're talking about here. There is something driving it, and if you do a bit more research on the topic (I studied Law, so this interests me a lot), you'll find a lot more backing it up as well.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._incarceration_rates_1...
Also, in the story about which we are discussing, the prosecutor broke the law. In my opinion, his punishment should have been harsher.
Once I had some legal problems that got dropped, years later while applying for a permit for work at the police station, I was questioned about this incident and turned down for what I was applying for. There isnt anything on my record for this except an incident report the courts dropped it why should I still be looked down upon.
What can we do as individuals and as a society to improve the Justice system and help rehabilitate former criminals? This is an area where we should also have start-ups looking to make a better tomorrow. Isn't that also part of "Changing The World"?