Transition From Prisoner to Exonerated: Times Tracks Difficulties in New Life
posted by Deven Desai
The New York Times has interviewed 115 people whose convictions have been overturned based on DNA evidence. Apparently support systems for these people are often thin and in some cases the resources for those who did commit crimes are better than for those who did not: “despite being imprisoned for an average of 12 years, they typically left prison with less help — prerelease counseling, job training, substance-abuse treatment, housing assistance and other services — than some states offer to paroled prisoners.” The article details the compensation claims, the employment status, and the re-incarceration rates. I do not research in this area of the law but if anyone has studied this issue please send along a cite. The article highlights that once someone has the conviction some states are slow to remove the conviction after the error is found. In addition, earlier facts such as a college degree or a good job history are overshadowed. That point raises the question of when society truly forgives or forgets what came before. In these cases it seems that the vague knowledge that someone was convicted even though now found innocent is enough to hinder if not thwart efforts to rejoin society. Although the article focuses on what sort of compensation if any these people can receive and that issue is important, the Les Miserables aspect of being hounded by one’s past even if that reputation is undeserved poses problems. Dan’s work on online reputation and his earlier work about digital persons intersect here. The continual access to this information interferes if not prevents someone from re-establishing their identity, Whether society wants to provide the space to allow such acts may be what the lack of support for the exonerated points to.
The Times also has a multi-media, interactive feature that allows one to hear many of the voices and stories of the exonerated.
November 25, 2007 at 8:18 am
Posted in: Criminal Law
Print This Post
Responses (1)
Danny Vice - January 3, 2008 at 5:18 am
In the United States, restitution for those incarcerated is certainly not guaranteed. In fact, in many states, there are more government resources for those released on parole than there are for those who have been wrongly incarcerated and later exonerated and released.
Currently, an overwhelming number of people who have been exonerated of a crime are not compensated for the toll the incarceration took on their lives socially and economically.
Thus far, only 22 states in the US have laws in place to provide some level of compensation for those who were wrongly convicted. This means a majority of those who went back to court and proved their innocence are then required to sue for this compensation.
This process utilizes significant resources that a recently released inmate typically does not have. For those who do have the knowledge or financial ability to bring a case, the enormous cost of the additional legal wrangling involved may soak up much of the payout.
Many victims of this outrageous process are handed the more daunting challenge of simply restoring their name, let alone consideration of a lawsuit that may or may not result in restitution for the time that has been lost.
What’s more, the payout often times received is meager in comparison to what is usually lost. Marty Tankleff for example was sentenced to a New York state prison after being wrongly convicted of killing his parents. Although his case was recently overturned, Marty just recently visited his parent’s graves for the first time since their deaths.
Ronnie Taylor, a Houston man who was recently exonerated of a crime he didn’t commit was engaged to be married before his arrest in 1993. DNA testing proved his innocence 14 years later – allowing him to finally marry his bride Jeanette Brown. (source)
The Innocence Protect, one organization established in 1992 utilizes DNA testing as a means to force new hearings for those who are wrongly accused. It’s website lists hundreds of cases of wrongly convicted individuals who’s cases were overturned after a conviction.
While the Weekly Vice does not subscribe to every point of view of the Project’s mission statement, one has to wonder where our culture would be without such advocates. Many wrongfully accused individuals have languished in prison for decades before their faulty convictions were tossed out.
Here are a few more examples of justice gone horribly wrong:
Dennis Brown from Louisiana was convicted of a 1984 rape and spent 19 years in prison before DNA testing confirmed that he could not have been the rapist.
Marvin Anderson became the ninety-ninth person in the US to be exonerated of a crime due to post-conviction DNA testing. Even when another individual confessed to the crime Lamont was accused of, the Judge upheld the conviction until DNA evidence finally confirmed Lamont’s innocence. He wasn’t exonerated until 1992, nearly 20 years after his arrest.
Orlando Boquete’s wrongful conviction of attempted sexual battery was vacated a staggering 24 years after his arrest back in 1982.
Robert Clark, wrongly convicted of rape, kidnapping and armed robbery in 1982, languished in prison primarily by mistaken eyewitness. Mistaken identity seems to be a common theme with the cases that later get overturned by post-conviction DNA evidence. Clark was finally vindicated 24 years later.
Luis Diaz was wrongly convicted in 1980 as the ‘Bird Road Rapist’, where 25 women were attacked, many of them sexually assaulted. Diaz was convicted for 8 of them. His case was overturned 25 years later in 2005.
Conclusion:
These are only a handful of the cases you can view HERE, however they are a sampling of the many instances where our legal system goes horribly wrong to such degree that compensation for one’s life cannot be calculated as a mere loss of wages as most restitution awarding states provide.
The Weekly Vice supports tough sentencing guidelines for all sexual assault cases, particularly those of minor children.
We also believe however, that states should be equally aggressive with some level of state subsidy, restitution or other adjudged compensation that is deemed appropriate for each individual case. A dismal 22 states is not a goodwill showing for a nation who prides itself on a Justice For All philosophy.
Thanks For Accepting Comment—–
Danny Vice
The Weekly Vice
htt://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
Leave a Reply