Man Gets $20 Million Settlement for Wrongful Conviction After 20 Years In Jail

[Martinus]

So we should let people be harmed by the state because we can't prevent some people from exploiting it? I thought you were a libertarian - that is an extremely statist position.

The state has special authority no other actor has; and its nature makes it often impossible to determine culpability of individual officials. All this supports the position that it should be liable on an objective basis.

In a dispute between the state and the individual I'd rather err on the side favouring the individual.

[Admiral Yi]

I mentioned more than one reason.

I don't understand your point about statism.

I don't understand your point about objectivity.

[sbr]

as your article says, the involuntary confession and denial of defense claims weren't decided either way. so, there's nothing but allegations there. doesn't sound like there's much for prosecutorial misconduct. they twisted evidence too much. gee.

it seems like the police didn't do anything wrong. so, looks like the government gave the guy a free $20 million (based off limited info).

Confessions.  Multiple.  Neither were particularly persuasive, apparently, and neither had been obtained in any real voluntary sense, it would appear, but two confessions looks real bad right on the surface.

The real problem here was that the same judge oversaw all three trials, in spite of getting spanked for his rulings in one and vacating the second because of the countervailing DNA evidence.  It does seem to me like he was out to oversee a conviction, come what may.  When judges show such bias in the a first trial, they should be recused from any further participation.

All of know of this case is from this thread and DSB's link (which is good, and short) but based on that I would say "multiple confessions" is a bit of a stretch.  They had to get the second because the first was so obviously false.

Shortly after 8:00 A.M., investigators took the typed confession they had prepared to the padded cell, where Rivera signed it. The document — a narrative account of what the investigators claimed Rivera told them — was so riddled with incorrect and implausible information that Lake County State's Attorney Michael Waller instructed investigators to resume the interrogation in an effort to clear up the "inconsistencies." Despite Rivera's obvious fragile mental condition, the interrogation resumed at 11:30 A.M. About 90 minutes later, Rivera signed the second confession, which contained a plausible account of the crime.

[grumbler]

All of know of this case is from this thread and DSB's link (which is good, and short) but based on that I would say "multiple confessions" is a bit of a stretch.  They had to get the second because the first was so obviously false.

Multiple means more than one.  It isn't a "bit of a stretch" to say that two is more than one.

[garbon]

All of know of this case is from this thread and DSB's link (which is good, and short) but based on that I would say "multiple confessions" is a bit of a stretch.  They had to get the second because the first was so obviously false.

Multiple means more than one.  It isn't a "bit of a stretch" to say that two is more than one.

True though "multiple" has a vibe of many while "a couple" suggests, well just two.

[sbr]

All of know of this case is from this thread and DSB's link (which is good, and short) but based on that I would say "multiple confessions" is a bit of a stretch.  They had to get the second because the first was so obviously false.

Multiple means more than one.  It isn't a "bit of a stretch" to say that two is more than one.

I never said there wasn't more than one.  He did in fact sign two confessions.  The fact that the second one only came about because the first was so obviously fabricated by the cops that the DA sent them back to get another stretches that fact a bit from what multiple confessions would normally mean.

[grumbler]

True though "multiple" has a vibe of many while "a couple" suggests, well just two.

True, but if anyone gets that DSBish we can just note the verbal confession that preceded the first written confession, and we are past the two-mark.     None of these confessions were worth anything, but the jury hears about him confessing several times and the ground is well and truly poisoned.

[grumbler]

I never said there wasn't more than one.  He did in fact sign two confessions.  The fact that the second one only came about because the first was so obviously fabricated by the cops that the DA sent them back to get another stretches that fact a bit from what multiple confessions would normally mean.

I don't know as much as you about police fabricating confessions in this case, but here your conclusion is to repeat the very argument of mine that you contested.

[Razgovory]

That's what it always comes back too, don't it Yi?

Depends what "it" is.

Money from taxation and other people getting it "Free".

[Admiral Yi]

Money from taxation and other people getting it "Free".

[Yeah, I don't think the average retired cop or DA has 20 million sitting in a checking account] is what [Money from taxation and other people getting it "Free"] always comes back to?  No, I don't think so.

Good question though.

[Valmy]

Wait Yi is a libertarian?

[grumbler]

Wait Yi is a libertarian?

He's hidden it well, if he is.

[Admiral Yi]

Wait Yi is a libertarian?

I have quite a bit of sympathy for libertarian ideals, but I'm not terribly fond of it as a political label.

[Razgovory]

Money from taxation and other people getting it "Free".

[Yeah, I don't think the average retired cop or DA has 20 million sitting in a checking account] is what [Money from taxation and other people getting it "Free"] always comes back to?  No, I don't think so.

Good question though.

I thought that was what you were getting at.  Since people like CdM and Barrister don't have to 20 million bucks lying around to pay restitution, the 20 million will be paid by the state that is by tax payers and thus your reticence to see the wrongly convicted get large sums.

[Admiral Yi]

I get it now.  [Money from taxation and other people getting it "Free"] is not "it', it is "that."

[Money from taxation and other people getting it "Free"] is what [any discussion of public spending??] always comes back to, isn't it Yi?

I think this is what you were trying to communicate.

Which is totally awesome as a put down, but didn't have a whole lot to do with the post you quoted.

And to directly answer your rather byzantine and convoluted question, no, I don't the issue of compensating the victims of government wrongdoing has anything at all to do with [other people getting money from taxation for free].