How inmate Michael Morton lost 25 years of his life(cnn.com)
cnn.com
How inmate Michael Morton lost 25 years of his life
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/justice/exonerated-prisoner-update-michael-morton/index.html
12 comments
The prosecutor should serve at least 25 years in jail for withholding key evidence and ruining this persons life. Christ these stories make me so upset. :/
Great. Now you know exactly how the jury felt when they ruined this persons life based on a complete lack of evidence that he committed a crime (never mind the withheld evidence against it).
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.
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.
I'm not angry, I'm upset.
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.
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.
I agree that 10 days is too litte, but note that it's part of a deal which cost him his law license and highly prestigious (and paid) job as a judge. That's the real punishment.
Agreed with you there; I only hope that this continues moving forward. It's fairly unprecedented that a prosecutor would have this happen. It's not really about punishment as it is disincentive... I hope its enough to stop future Mr Moretons from having their lives ruined.
I agree with your last sentence, but I think it's a bit out of place here. The OP didn't call for a disproportionate sentence. Prosecutor Ken Anderson deliberate falsified a case that cost Mr Morton 25 years of his life. A 25 year sentence for Ken Anderson would seem perfectly reasonable to me.
The OP is calling for a disproportionate sentence. 25 years is more than many murderers get.
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.
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.
People in power over the rest of us should be held to higher standards. That should be the trade-off. As it stands, it is not the case, and there are few consequences for actions like these. That should change.
Oh, and by gunning for Mr Morton, the actual murderer went free, and killed someone else.
Oh, and by gunning for Mr Morton, the actual murderer went free, and killed someone else.
> 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.
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.
> "you are in fact judging this case emotionally, not reasonably."
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.
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.
So basically an eye for an eye all over again. Never mind the consequences, like incentivizing prosecutors to avoid long sentences at all cost to reduce their personal risk.
I'm very much against "eye for an eye" as a general principle, but in this particular case -- in the inner workings of our judicial system -- I think it has utility.
> "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?
> "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?
Since when is it about revenge rather than education when you put people in jail? Do you really believe 10/15/20/25 years in this case would make a difference? It sounds like you're going for the eye for an eye solution here.
This is not about revenge for me.
> "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.
> "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.
No, but I really don't think anything over 10 years really can influence the person's behaviour. It's a 20->30, or 30->40 years jump - not only you took a lot of their life and broke most of their outside connections, but also the natural character change takes place. Holding someone for 20+ years would make them both useless to the society afterwards and unlikely to be able to live on their own.
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.
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.
There appears to be no shortage of evidence that Ken Anderson is a criminal. "The State Bar’s Commission for Lawyer Discipline wrote in its court filing that Anderson knew of the evidence and withheld it. The filing also alleges that Anderson made a false statement to the court when he told the judge he had no evidence that could be favorable to Morton’s claims of innocence."[1]
[1] http://www.texastribune.org/2012/10/19/state-bar-seeks-disci...
[1] http://www.texastribune.org/2012/10/19/state-bar-seeks-disci...
I'm sure that those who lynched some black dude whenever a white woman was murdered in the 1900s South also often sincerely believed there was no shortage of evidence.
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.
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.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to bring race into this. I'll concede to you that some people in the South are racist. I never said otherwise. Nor have I or anyone else that I've noticed ITT suggested that lynch-mob style justice is what Ken Anderson deserves. What people have said is that Ken Anderson's crimes are serious, and deserving of more than it appears he will get. To use a prosecutor's rhetoric, a deterrent is needed.
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.
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.
Yes, that happens. This is really not that case. The prosecutors actions lead to someone else getting killed. These are known facts, and not really up for debate.
More to the point, without consequences for their actions, prosecutors have an incentive to do this stuff.
More to the point, without consequences for their actions, prosecutors have an incentive to do this stuff.
Then that incentive should perhaps be removed rather than trying to add a negative incentive to prevent its abuse. There should be a better way to choose prosecutors for promotion than winning high-profile trials.
I agree with you. The problem is, that is something that will take a massive coordinated effort and systemic change, and frankly will have huge push-back by the prosecutors themselves (everyone likes easy actionable metrics)... It also assumes that all prosecutors are good, which we can never assume of everyone in a profession.
So, I think both tactics are required.
So, I think both tactics are required.
I agree; but our criminal justice system operates on the theory of deterrence. I find it particularly ironic that you speak up in defense of a prosecutor who builds a career based upon his (unjust) application of deterrence.
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.
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'm curious about what percentage of incarcerated population in the US is innocent. US holds roughly 2.3 MM inmates in its prisons, that's highest rate of incarceration[1] in the world. Wondering if there is a way to put a number, or guess the percentage of innocent civilians serving jail time at any given point of time.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rat...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rat...
I'm also curious as to how many innocent americans are executed.
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.
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.
Not too too many. There aren't very many executions in the US, is is losing popularity in public opinion and not practiced in all states. However, it is legal for federal crimes and military courts.
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...
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...
The hope was that in recent history, far fewer people had been executed, particularly as technology, and better knowledge of what types of evidence stand up to scrutiny has improved.
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
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
10 years in prison is a lot for a non-violent crime. He might have withheld evidence but in the end it's the jury who found him guilty.
The prosecutor got 10 days? Unless I'm reading your comment incorrectly.
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. :(
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. :(
A non-violent crime? Are you kidding? If you were kidnapped and imprisoned by an entity other than the State, would that be a violent crime? False imprisonment is a violent crime.
>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?
>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?
10 days.
There is an excellent longform article on this. Heartbreaking.
http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-one?full...
http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-two?full...
http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-one?full...
http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-two?full...
> Their last meeting was so brief that Eric [Morton's son] and Marylee [Morton's wife's sister] barely sat down. Eric, who was fifteen, was unable to look Michael in the eye. “I don’t want to come here anymore,” he choked out.
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.
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.
Why is it possible for either side to withhold evidence? Why is all evidence not put on a table for both sides to dissect?
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!
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!
It is possible because a prosecutor's incentives are to get convictions above all else, and because prosecutors are rarely (almost never) held to account for such crimes. Even when prosecutors deliberately obstruct efforts by the defense to obtain that evidence, going so far as to ignore an order from a higher court, the punishment is relatively small.
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...
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...
Evidence isn't conjured into existence by the judge and then withheld by lawyers. It's discovered by the lawyers. It's not a logical possibility to prevent them from failing to bring it to everyone else's attention.
I always thought the police gather evidence? I remember from my own interactions the police are always present. This is in the UK where processes may be much different...
Re proesecutor: "He also agreed to a $500 fine, 500 hours of community service, and the loss of his law license, according to the Innocence Project, a legal clinic affiliated with Yeshiva University's Cardozo Law School."
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.
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.
I bet there were people who campaigned for the innocent man to be executed based on exactly this state of mind.
I don't see the equivalency. The prosecutor abused his official position and the legal system to personally advance his career. If anything, we should hold our officials and authorities to even harsher standards to ensure equitable treatment under the law.
If anything, we should fix the systems that allow miscarriages of justice like this to happen.
Yet revenge seems to be the first motivation of most people. Making things worse instead of making things better.
Yet revenge seems to be the first motivation of most people. Making things worse instead of making things better.
We should, but part of fixing the system that allows these things to happen is penalizing "bad actors." The prosecutor hid evidence from the judge, not just the defense. In addition, a brutal murderer is still free among the populace. What if they've killed again in the interim?
"What if they've killed again in the interim?"
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.
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.
A brutal murderer is in jail. He did kill in the interim, and was caught for that... pretty sad, to be honest :(
In this case the prosecutor's witheld evidence did result in another murder by the real perpetraitor 2 years later so your point is especially valid.
The prosecutor should have that on his shoulders as well.
The prosecutor should have that on his shoulders as well.
It's not about revenge.
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"...
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"...
People are really good at ignoring consequences and believing that they won't get caught, or are justified to break the rules.
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.
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.
My point as the GP entirely.
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.
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.
You are certain, after reading some newspaper articles, that Ken Anderson abused his position for personal gain, and the most important thing to you is that he be punished more severely. Your slogan: "an eye for an eye".
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?
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?
I am certain and I do not see the equivalency. This news story is local to me and is one of many examples of innocent individuals in Texas that have been railroaded by the "authorities" here.
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.
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.
YOU should be drug behind a vehicle until you see the equivalency. All you're doing is reiterating that YOU consider this crime so heinous that the rule of law shouldn't apply - which just happens to be close to what this guy did.
No, they have evidence here. Quite a lot of it, in fact. Enough to get Mr Morton off his huge sentence. And enough for the Judge to step down, and plead guilty. Not equivalent, in my opinion.
The police probably beat that confession out of Anderson. /s
In Texas, there is always some idiot[1] campaigning to have some poor bastard executed.
[1] usually a prosecutor.
[1] usually a prosecutor.
Your footnote is a tautology. ;)
I will never understand punishment-crazy people.
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.
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.
I'm suggesting that he needs to be accountable on his own terms for his actions and should be held to the same standards as his judgement.
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.
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.
Acceptable risk? How far removed from reality are you? The punishment he received seems quite horrific and life-destroying to me. Two months wages for withholding tax is acceptable. Losing your career? Not.
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.
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.
Actually I'm in the UK.
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.
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.
Depends. Hopefully his punishment will become a standard, the article discusses how this is unprecedented. If it becomes standard, hopefully it is enough of a disincentive to balance out the prosecutors incentive to withhold evidence and push for convictions in all cases, as it stands now.
Slightly (only slightly) off-topic: what is it going to take for us to see a complete or at least large overhaul of the justice system in the US? We're incarcerating too many people for minor crimes and it is causing a ripple effect on poverty and economic growth (not to mention ruining TONS of people's lives).
Can you be more specific? What minor crimes are you talking about? What's the breakdown of crimes for the the current prison population? Have any references to articles that have a deeper discussion so we can come up to speed?
It is well know the US has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Both per capita and by sheer numbers. All the breakdown you can ever ask for is here.
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.
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.
Burglary, and theft in general, is a non-violent crime. If you're caught 3 times for that, shouldn't the punishment be more severe? Similarly, selling heroin is a non-violent crime. It would be helpful to see a more detailed breakdown on the effects of the "war on crime."
By the way, I understand that the "three strikes" laws have had some unintended consequences and should be revisited.
By the way, I understand that the "three strikes" laws have had some unintended consequences and should be revisited.
I don't have an opinion on either, I am just presenting what most people talk about when they speak about the rising prison population of the United States.
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.
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.
Frankly, if you've got the highest per capita incarceration rate in the entire world, and is nearly 7X that of countries that are other first-world democracies (Canada, Australia, etc)... something tells me there is an issue, somewhere.
That in itself doesn't mean that we have a problem. Maybe we are better at catching criminals? Maybe we have more criminals? I'm trying to go through what little material that has been provided here. Here's one example as to why we have a higher rate. We have longer sentencing.
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...
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...
well someone caught with a tiny amount of crack cocaine is sentenced to (I'm paraphrasing since I am on my phone, don't have the stats) like 90 days vs 30 for cocaine. Alternatively I think there should be more emphasis on rehab. Real rehabilitation programs, mandatory drug rehab for even first time drug offenders perhaps.
And not to mention enriching some people through wrong means.
> Morton was freed in October 2011. He was 57 years old. "I thank God this wasn't a capital case," he said.
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.
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.
According to the article, Morton only became religious while he was in prison. I guess starting to believe that there's something more important than the real world is one way of coping with a staggering injustice suffered in it.
In Texas prisons, religious ministries are allowed time and facilities to preach to inmates. The chapel in Texas prisons is often one of the only air-conditioned spaces (other than the library). Consequently, (I suspect) religious participation among inmates is higher than it might otherwise be.
source: I was a correctional officer in Texas for a couple of years.
source: I was a correctional officer in Texas for a couple of years.
From my experience (am an atheist, was raised as a devout Catholic), it's a coping mechanism. Turn it into a "trial" handed to you to test your faith, and you can make sense of it.
Easier to deal with for some people, rather than accepting the inherent randomness that exists in life.
Easier to deal with for some people, rather than accepting the inherent randomness that exists in life.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
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.
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.
You are offering an opinion that has no basis in fact. Innocent people going to jail isn't a modern problem. We must certainly try to solve the problem but complaining that "power hungry police and prosecutors are getting worse" adds no value or intelligence to the conversation, and you can't even prove that we are worse off today than 100 years ago, for example.
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?
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?
The OP itself says that the prosecutor (now Judge) being convicted was a huge change in procedure. It never happens.
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!).
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!).
I don't have a stance. Like most people, it's not something that I really give much thought to. I'm trying to cut through the storm of complaining so I can get to the facts. What problems are you trying to solve beyond the fact that we never want someone who is innocent to go to jail?
Personally, my opinion is that prosecutors have incentives that don't align with the good of society (if we take "Innocent people should not go to jail" as a good thing, and a worthy goal). Their incentives are to convict as many people as possible; this case we're discussing is a good example of that effect.
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...
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...
So, you are saying that because prosecutors are trying to convict "as many people as possible", the problem is that too many innocent people are going to jail. I think we've established this isn't the problem. People are committing "crimes", but many people feel that the crimes are too harsh. For example, someone mentioned that a crack user gets 90 days while a cocaine user only gets 30 days.
Also, in the story about which we are discussing, the prosecutor broke the law. In my opinion, his punishment should have been harsher.
Also, in the story about which we are discussing, the prosecutor broke the law. In my opinion, his punishment should have been harsher.
I would like the police and legal system to stop looking at everyone like criminals. The concept of innocent until proven guilty is not a view seen by these people, if they come across you, youre guilty.
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.
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.
very sad story. I still can't believe the prosecuter only served 5 days in jail and paid a minor fine. These injustices are crushing my heart. I do really want to believe in fairness and Justice but after reading such a piece I cannot maintain those illusions.
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"?
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"?
Here's a perfect case where you would want Morton had become a mastermind in jail, to come out to frame the prosecutor for murder so he can go thru the same thing.
I'm not sure about heaven, but American prosecuting attorneys are one reason I believe in hell.
These things scare me more than terrorism