Brickbat: They'll Only Go So Far


The Cook County, Illinois, state attorney's office asked a court last year to release James Kluppelberg from prison. Kluppelberg had spent 24 years behind bars after being convicted of setting a fire that killed six people. But witnesses at his trial later recanted their testimony, and the prosecution's own experts now say the investigation was "unreliable" and "no longer supportable." Kluppelberg is a free man, but he still has the conviction on his record, and the state attorney's office is fighting his attempt to get a certificate of innocence. Officials say they cannot prove him guilty but they also can't prove he's innocent.
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
Innocent until proven guilty. Now guilty until proven innocent. Except they admit he wasn't proven guilty.
I think my head's going to explode.
he's in some kind of limbo. Not guilty and not innocent. Just... possibly either.
So I guess courts should change. Even if a Not Guilty verdict is reached by the jury, the person still has the charges on their record because they cannot prove their innocence. Should be fun times ahead!
Of course, our knucklehead governor could always pardon him...nah, too busy looking for moar spending.
You live in Illinois? I'm so, so sorry...
Do you guys already have a cell picked out for the guv, or is he smart enough to not get caught on tape?
Illinois could save a lot of time and trouble is they would just elect a currently incarcerated convict as governor.
No one is innocent.
Maynard said it first!
"It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural causes."
Since time is short and you may lie, I'm going to have to torture you. I just want you to know, it isn't personal.
BTW, I have a top 3 favorite movies that I know what they are, but can't separate them. That's definitely one of them.
"So, you have quite a gap in your resume, Mr. Kluppelberg. What were you doing for the last 24 years?"
"Um...I was...working for the state."
"Oh. Well, what sort of work were you doing?"
"Um...you know, cleaning, sometimes some light metalwork."
"And why don't you list that on your resume?"
"Um...."
These stories are uplifting and utterly crushing at the same time. Yeah, it's great he (and others) got out. But FUCK why does it take TWENTY OUR YEARS???!!!
I hate the state...
After being kidnapped and held against his will for 24 years, he should never have to work again. In a just world he would be set for (what remains of his)) life. But this isn't a just world and very few people are actually trying to make it into one.
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS IS OUT OF MONEY. They should probably bill him for 24 years of rent and food.
So much for innocent until proven guilty, that went the way of the dinosaurs and the Constitution. In the new progressive era USA we're all potentially guilty (easy to do) unless proven innocent (which is about impossible to do). Don't worry though if the current limbo system lands you in prison, and you survive that ordeal, it probably won't cost you more, or less, than a quarter of a century (maybe). If that all seems a little unfair it's your fault for not being politically connected in which case literally getting away with murder would have been a piece of cake.
Better a thousand innocent people go to jail than a single innocent person go free.
That's how it goes right?
Damned right. It would be impossible to sleep at night knowing a potentially guilty person was not being severely punished.
witnesses at his trial later recanted their testimony
IANAL, but shouldn't these upstanding citizens be "working for the state"?
In theory, yes, but if prosecuting recanters was a habit, perjurers would hesitate to admit their perjury even if it would release an innocent person.
Why do you think they perjured themselves? Who could have suborned their perjury? Answer that question and you'll have your answer as to why they won't be charged.
I understand. It would *seem* that in cases like this, "Truth, Justice, and The American Way" should be interested in making an example of the suborners and their ilk.
But, there I go again ....
Looks like they know what they are talking about ofver there.
http://www.NetAnon.da.bz
"Officials say they cannot prove him guilty but they also can't prove he's innocent."
How does that burden of proof thing work again?
It seems the officials have developed a case of amnesia on the concept.
If he can't prove he's innocent, he deserves to be in Jail.
Think of the Childrenz.