What Do We Owe Exonerated Inmates?
Why justice demands full atonement when we punish the innocent
Editor's Note: Steve Chapman is on vacation. The following column was originally published in August 2006.
Michael Evans won an Illinois lottery. The state presented him with a check for $162,000. But forgive him if he's not as grateful as most Lotto winners. His payout didn't come to him because he selected some winning numbers. It came because he spent 27 years in prison for a rape and murder committed by someone else.
That amount of money wouldn't be a bad return on a $2 wager. But for the time he spent behind bars, it comes to about $6,000 a year. He could have made more working for minimum wage.
Evans thought someone owed him more than that for all he endured. He filed a $60 million lawsuit against 10 former Chicago police officers whom he accused of framing him. But a federal jury rejected his claim, which meant Evans got nothing—except that state check. The maximum allowed by law, it amounts to less than $17 per day he spent behind bars.
He took the verdict hard, saying, "In my case, I don't really see how justice has been done." Bad as his treatment was, though, it could have been worse. Illinois furnishes modest compensation for inmates who are exonerated. But many states that allow compensation offer even less—and most states provide nothing at all.
Some states are reasonably generous. Utah provides $70,000 for each year spent on death row. Tennessee allows awards as high as $1 million. Alabama, Vermont, Michigan, and Hawaii offer up to $50,000 for each year of mistaken imprisonment. California pays $100 per day.
But others think inmates should be content with breathing fresh air. Wisconsin caps payouts at $25,000, and New Hampshire has a limit of $20,000. Montana grants only tuition, room, and board at any community college in the state.
And 29 states have no laws aimed at making the injured person whole. In those places, if you get locked up by mistake and want financial compensation, you have to go to court or to the legislature, neither of which is obligated to give it. All you're guaranteed in Florida, for example, is $100 and a bus ticket, which is provided to the guilty as well as the innocent.
Florida's legislature has sometimes approved financial redress, but, as in other states, obtaining it can be harder than getting off death row. Freddie Pitts and Wilbert Lee spent 12 years in prison before being pardoned in 1975. But the state rebuffed 19 separate petitions before finally agreeing to give them each $500,000—in 1998.
Lawsuits can be even harder. To win damages, the former inmate has to demonstrate not only that he was convicted in error, but that the police were guilty of misconduct. Ineptitude or carelessness isn't enough.
Even states that have set up systems for compensation don't necessarily make it easy. Illinois is one of several states that say it doesn't suffice to be cleared by DNA or other compelling evidence: A pardon by the governor on grounds of innocence is also required.
Discovering wrongful convictions is not exactly a freakish occurrence anymore. Since 1973, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, 123 death row inmates have been cleared. Many other inmates have been exonerated of lesser felonies, usually through DNA analysis.
It's hard to envision a more nightmarish experience than being convicted of a heinous crime that you didn't commit and then sent to prison for years or decades. On top of this, death row inmates spend every hour anticipating the day when they will be escorted from their cells, strapped to a gurney, and injected with lethal poison. When freed, inmates face huge hurdles in trying to rebuild the lives that were taken from them. Most of us wouldn't go through that for all the money in Microsoft.
The 5th Amendment to the Constitution says the government may not take your property without paying just compensation. But if you're entitled to fair market value for being deprived of your house, shouldn't losing a large share of your time on Earth be worth more than $6,000 per year?
In Illinois and most other places, the answer is no. But if justice demands that we punish the guilty, it also calls for full atonement when we punish the innocent.
COPYRIGHT 2006 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Well, I'm sure they're all guilty of SOMETHING.
/republican off
Does the state of New York owe anything to the estates of Amadou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, and Sean Bell?
So if you're entitled to fair market value for being deprived of your house, shouldn't losing a large share of your time on Earth be worth something as well?
Yes.
Good Morning America just headlined murdered census worker as "anti-govt hate crime". Looking for details...
Next you'll be saying TSA owes innocent me for breaking my checked-luggage stuff.
I have heard and read that people wrongfully incarcerated at Gitmo are at risk for joining Al Qaeda.
Would not these exonerated inmates be at risk for joining Al Qaeda or some other terrorist group? They have been wronged by society, and they would have motivation to seek revenge.
Good point, Michael. Best require these guys to register, like sex-offenders.
I never would have thought of it without similar arguments from those who criticize the incarceration of terrorists in Guantanamo Bay or the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Yea, those nasty Israelis should have just sat by while the friendly Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians and others were coming by for a friendly visit and to sho off their cool new tanks.
show*
In cases of prosecutorial misconduct or withholding of exculpatory evidence I'd say the prosecutor owes the innocent released person an equal amount of years behind bars at a minimum.
Once out, they should be able to freely commit the crime they were wrongly convicted of committing in the first place against the prosecutor.
Okay, maybe not. But I agree that whatever compensation they get should come at a personal expense of the DA who originally fucked up.
He's entitled to whatever the law provides.
In effect he lost a lottery that everybody else plays in too.
There's some chance that you'll be convicted of something you didn't do, and everybody runs the risk.
In such cases, you're taking a hit for the team. Bad luck.
The up-side is that correct convictions also become possible.
If it's engineered right, you have a the highest correct conviction rate compatible with an acceptably low false conviction rate.
That's a social tradeoff, and the law works it out.
"Well, I'm sure they're all guilty of SOMETHING.
/republican off"
Lovely straw man you have there.
A little off the subject, but in the same vein...these is no such thing as "cruel and unusual punishment" in prison rape is not so considered.
That guy in the photo obviously didn't get the memo. No smoking in prison...second hand smoke can kill!!!
If you have been framed by a cop (or anyone else) and spent years in jail for something you didn't do, you are a crime victim.
We have several million pages of laws about how crime victims should get restitution. Generally they are compensated by the criminal, and others who abetted the criminal.
But here, you are arguing that even though the government court did nothing wrong, the government should be paying out money. It just doesn't make sense. Indeed, it is indicative of a lawyer mindset that the government is simply sitting on mountains of taxpayer money that it should be handing out to victims of any kind.
If a cop frames me and I spend 10 years in prison, I want the cop to go to prison. And I want to bankrupt him to pay me for all the time I spent there. If his boss knew about it and covered it up, same goes for him.
But the idea that I should bill the taxpayers is frankly insane.
He's entitled to whatever the law provides.
The question, I believe, is what should the law provide.
At a minimum, the victim should have their record completely cleared so any background check comes up squeaky clean (at least on the wrongful conviction), treble damages for any out-of-pocket expenses incurred, and some fairly substantial sum for each year behind bars (say, $100,000.00), with interest.
For actual prosecutorial misconduct, depending on the misconduct in each case, the offending prosecutor should be exposed to having their license suspended, being barred from ever acting as a prosecutor again, and personal liability for damages.
Does the state of New York owe anything to the estates of Amadou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, and Sean Bell?
The state owes nothing.
However, there have been pretty big civil settlements.
New at Reason: Steve Chapman on What We Owe Exonerated Inmates
Corrective anal surgery?
"Yea, those nasty Israelis should have just sat by while the friendly Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians and others were coming by for a friendly visit and to sho off their cool new tanks."
Right on John! Of course occupying the land all of those folks (including the women and children who had no part in such attacks) lived on and ruling them at gunpoint without their consent or the grant of any citizenship rights while also systematically taking the land they've lived on for centuries and putting settlements on that land for Israelis was the only moral response! Who could doubt otherwise, other than anti-Semites and rogues of various stripes?
Prosecutors and Police officers are pretty much immuned from misconduct.
Rarely, if ever, are they made accountable.
Some argue that no one would become cops/prosecutors if they were targets of such actions.
When cops are brought up on crimes, they almost always waive their right to a trial by jury. The judge (who is also a cop in a sense) almost always finds the officers not guilty.
Lack of compensation seems to me to be an admission that trial by jury is nothing but a crap shoot. That is, it's not a procedure designed to determine whether a person actually committed a crime. A guilty verdict just means a random bunch of nosepickers believes you committed a crime. Evidently, the State takes no responsibility for the opinions of random nosepickers.
Seriously - what is a "trial?" And what do "guilty" and "innocent" mean? The whole trial ritual seems to be somehow detached from reality. If it's not interested in who really committed the crime, then what is its purpose? For the community to "judge" the accused? what purpose does that serve.
Our legal system is very strange. Like trial by combat, only without the swords. The theory seems to be: if we let the accused and the accusers duke it out - with words rather than weapons - then somehow God or someone will make sure the results are correct, the guilty punished, and the innocent are vindicated. Seems kind of superstitious to me...
"Seriously - what is a "trial?" And what do "guilty" and "innocent" mean? The whole trial ritual seems to be somehow detached from reality. If it's not interested in who really committed the crime, then what is its purpose? For the community to "judge" the accused? what purpose does that serve."
Um, the whole point of the crime is to determine who committed the crime. We have this quaint tradition of "innocent until proven guilty." That meas that even if everyone saw you kill your husband, you still get a chance to plead your case. But in many cases, there's only concrete evidence that a crime was committed, not *who* committed it, and if that person acted alone. That's what the trial is for. It's not an exact science, but it's probably 99% effective. Plus, you need to take it into account that most cases never make it to trial.
This is why you have to be ready to dominate a prison. See that big black guy named Skinny? Punch him in the face. Shank a guard. Show that you are badass, who will kill anyone for any reason, and you will own the prison.
"""Does the state of New York owe anything to the estates of Amadou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, and Sean Bell?"""
I don't think the state owes them anything. NYC on the other hand...
Diallo family settled with NYC for 3 million
Louima (you missed that one) settled with NYC for 9 million
Dorismond's family settled with NYC for 2.25 million.
Sean Bell's family hasn't settled.
I'm not convinced that a wrongful conviction should result in a windfall profit for the accused. Although he might have earned more at a min. wage job, he also might have loafed around and collected unemployment.
In this particular case, a federal jury didn't think much of his claim.
Why should the taxpayers be penalized for what is, in effect, an unavoidable social cost of making the burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" not "beyond any metaphysical doubt whatsoever."?
We build into the system a possibility of wrongful conviction rather than raise the bar of proof so high that many factually guilty offenders would go free.
Seems to me like the very small percentage of errors is a viable trade off for ensuring the greater safety of society (while still holding the state to a pretty difficult burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt").
Why should the taxpayers be penalized for what is, in effect, an unavoidable social cost of making the burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" not "beyond any metaphysical doubt whatsoever."?
Someone has to bear the cost. As between the innocent citizen and the taxpayer, I prefer the taxpayer (and I say that as a taxpayer).
Seems to me like the very small percentage of errors is a viable trade off for ensuring the greater safety of society.
Which doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not we compensate the victims of those "errors", much less the victims of intentional wrongdoing by prosecutors.
"...full atonement..."
That's an interesting employment of a religious concept.
shouldn't the district attorney be held responsible for the wrongful prosecution?
A pardon by the governor on grounds of innocence is also required.
WTF? Why in the world would an innocent person have to be pardoned?
What the government should issue in the case of a person wrongly convicted is an apology, not a pardon.
-jcr
Someone has to bear the cost. As between the innocent citizen and the taxpayer, I prefer the taxpayer (and I say that as a taxpayer).
I would prefer that the guilty party pay the innocent citizen. If he's convicted because the cops and prosecutor are negligent, then he should be made whole (no punitive damages). If somebody Nifonged him, then he should end up with every last red cent that the perp has.
-jcr
In these cases, the guilty party in NOT the original criminal. The original crime is a separate issue, and should be prosecuted separately. A new crime (persecution of the innocent) has been committed, and there's a new criminal. This crime is more severe and damaging to society than almost any other.
It's the DA, and, to a lesser extent, the judge. As long as DAs, cops, and judges are not punished -severely- for their cynical career-enhancing pursuit of conviction at any cost, this will continue and expand.
In the military, punishment increases with responsibility. I think that's right view.
"But here, you are arguing that even though the government court did nothing wrong, the government should be paying out money. It just doesn't make sense."
The government court did do somthing wrong, it convicted an innocent man. The cops and the DA are part of the government too.
"But the idea that I should bill the taxpayers is frankly insane."
Are you an anarchist? I ask, because that's the only way your argument makes any sense.
Why should taxpayers be billed for cost of the legal system at all? I haven't killed anyone nor have I or anyone in my family been a victim of murder. Why should I be billed for the cost of murder trials?
I agree wrongful convictions are an unavoidable part of the system and the cost of compensating the victims should be part of the system too.
If you are going to argue that the cost of wrongful convictions should fall solely on the victim (minus what might be recovered from the guilty) then you should be arguing the same for the cost of prosecuting the accused.
Who paid the civil settlements for Amadou Diallo, Sean Bell, and Patrick Dorismond?
Other people might resort to terrorist acts like bombing police cars and police stations.
I think a problem with the idea of prosecuting the prosecutor and the judges and the jury in cases where there has been wrongful accusation is that 1, responsibility is going to be diffused around, so that it is hard to pinpoint exactly who is the most guilty-and to dispense justice accordingly-and 2, meting out actual justice (wherein we are defining justice as something along the lines of 'giving the involved parties their due' or close to that) in the new prosecution case will be difficult because it will be almost impossible to draw the line between cognizant pursuit of a wrongful verdict and good-faith interpretation of the evidence (I assume that punishment should, in theory, be less for those prosecutors who actually did think that they were in the right, and had at least semi-justified beliefs). Therefore, it seems, it is very unlikely that the punishment of the wrongful accusers, whether punitive or compensatory (on an aside, which ought it to be/ ought it to be some mix?), will ever be commensurate in cost to the punishment of the wrongly accused. Also, how much burden falls on the shoulders of the DA in terms of negligence? If we punish the DA for negligence, won't that be impetus for DAs not to take cases that seem unwinnable?
Joint and several liability.
At a minimum, the victim should have their record completely cleared so any background check comes up squeaky clean (at least on the wrongful conviction), treble damages for any out-of-pocket expenses incurred, and some fairly substantial sum for each year behind bars (say, $100,000.00), with interest.
For actual prosecutorial misconduct, depending on the misconduct in each case, the offending prosecutor should be exposed to having their license suspended, being barred from ever acting as a prosecutor again, and personal liability for damages.
I couldn't agree more, RC. I will add only that in really agregious cases, the person responsible for the wrongful conviction should be punished with a jail term equal to that of the original conviction. This would only apply to blatant intentional misconduct.
Michael,
I understand that one of those (or perhaps both) principals would apply, but my question is: how? Or, at least, how in a just manner? For example, in such a case, would the prosecutor be more responsible for making a fallicious claim, or the jury, for buying it? I don't know a tonne of legal philosophy, so I am positing these questions out of curiousity, purely. I have no take on the matter.
Also, on another note, it doesn't seem quite fair to the members of the jury to enact joint and several liability and let the jury members face an experienced lawyer. On a purely speculatory note, I think that allowing the defendants to sort out the relative responsibility will leave the jury with too much burden and the prosecutor with too little.
"If it's engineered right, you have a the highest correct conviction rate compatible with an acceptably low false conviction rate."
If.
Of course, no one has any better idea on how to reorganize the justice system. No one has pointed to another country that has a fairer, more just justice system.
For example, the freedom to refuse to testify against oneself is rare, even among Western liberal democracies.
Would the jury be liable?
apparently if you work for the law, you don't have to follow it. Law in the US is a sham, the courts are corrupt. The only remedy for this is, everyone involved in the "conviction" gets to spend the same time in jail, and each pay the wronged 1 million dollars. Maybe they'll take the time to do their job RIGHT.
Michael,
Since this is mostly speculation, I suppose when I posed the statement, I was looking more for input than making any claims. Do you think the jury ought to be held accountable? Certainly such a body can be negligent in its duties. On the other hand, jury members are not there of their own will; prosecutors are. How do these things factor in to your framework?
Accountable for what ?
How would one prove a breach of duty on the part of the jury?
Accountable for coming to inaccurate conclusions--they are, in many cases, responsible for the final verdict.
I do not really know how one would prove it; nonetheless it can, and likely does, exist often times in the form of negligence.
And how could they come to an accurate conclusion if the evidence points at another direction?
But therein lies the problem: would you punish prosecutors if they truly believed that the defendant was guilty, and their belief was at least partly justified by the evidence?
The bar moves.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" means something completely different in the era of DNA testing, for example, than it did earlier.
And sure, old cases revisited with new technology can be cleared, which is wonderful...
But that doesn't mean the court didn't do it's best, rather that we can do more now.
I think that it's too easy to jump into this kind of a charged issue with absolutes. Especially where the waters get very muddy. While I think we owe the wrongly convicted everything we can do to help get them back onto their feet and help them regain some of the life that they lost we really shouldn't be focused on the reparations. Rather we should be looking at what we could do to prevent the innocent from being sent to jail in the first place.
It's easy to say 'throw the cops and the prosecuting DA in jail'. I'm sure we've all seen the 20/20 or 60 minutes reports where the cops and the DA barely looked for another suspect, coerced confessions or looked guilty as hell of being in some other way negligent. But what about other cases where the cops looked extensively through suspects and all evidence points toward this one person only to find out through improve technology that they couldn't have been the one to commit the crime. It's easy in hindsight to see where they went wrong sometimes, too.
Our legal system is a good system. It really is. But it's old and getting a little rusty in places. It needs some updating. New training for officers & detectives, perhaps new independant oversight of cases (especially when a case as a high emotional stake for a community). Ways to distance the DA from the outcome of a case so that a case won is not a political gain and a case 'lost' in the pursuit of what truly happened isn't a professional failure. And for ourselves as a people to realize that life, itself is dangerous and that when bad things happen, isn't always someone to blame even though we'd often like there to be.
How in the United States, can someone be found not guilty in a court of law,and be sentence to 25 years in prison? Is this unlawful or is he forgotten just like many others in the United States who are in prison for a crime in which they didnt committ.
My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on...the Bible's books were written by people with very different mindsets...in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it's literally a labyrinth, that's no joke
My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp.
is good
When freed, inmates face huge hurdles in trying to rebuild the lives that were taken from them.