Are states required to compensate the wrongfully convicted?
Ernest Simmons, who sat for 18 years on Pennsylvania’s death row for murder and rape convictions, accepted a plea bargain Friday, confessing to a lesser murder charge — third-degree instead of first-degree. He’ll likely be out of prison before the year is over (third degree murder generally carries a 10-20 year sentence in Pennsylvania; he’ll get out on time served).
Guys like Simmons are very often penniless when they get out of prison, and so the financial question they often ask themselves is: “What do I do now?”
Even in cases of outright exoneration — in which prisoners are proven innocent of the crimes that landed them in prison — it’s not unusual for states to say “sorry for destroying your life” without offering any form of compensation.
The Innocence Project in New York — the heart of the Innocence Movement, founded by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld at Yeshiva University — says a little over 40 percent of exonerated prisoners get any kind of compensation, and recommends that all states work to mandate the following:
* Compensate exonerated people immediately after release with a fixed sum or a range of recovery for each year of wrongful incarceration. Congress and President Bush have recommended that this amount be set at $50,000 per year of wrongful incarceration.
* Provide immediate re-entry funds and access to job training, educational, health and legal services after an innocent person’s release.
(Read the IP’s full recommendations here.)
Frontline’s “Burden of Innocence” compensation page shows that most states have ignored these recommendations and in fact that most states provide no statutory compensation whatsoever for wrongful convictions. Also:
“[M]any [states] have other restrictions such as requiring a pardon from the governor or prohibiting compensation to an exonerated individual who initially entered a guilty plea.”
Which means that if Simmons does get out of prison, he won’t get a dime.
But others aren’t so unlucky.
Last week, Thomas Doswell was awarded a $3.8 million settlement by Pittsburgh City Council after a DNA test exonerated him in 2005. He served 19 years on rape charges.
And in Omaha, Terry Harrington received $12 million after serving 26 years for a murder he didn’t commit.
Are Doswell’s and Harrington’s recent monetary fortunes indicative of future state decisions? Time will tell. In the meantime, it’s probably best for folks like Simmons to anticipate the joys of freedom rather than hoping their home state will bail them out of financial ruin.
Because — at least for the time being — they won’t.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Because I write about wrongful convictions, I have interviewed numerous exonerees, their relatives, friends and lawyers. Many of the exonerees led tough lives without adequate money before their wrongful convictions. When they depart prison, they frequently lack not only money, but also workplace skills.
Many exonerees say for widespread public consumption that they are not bitter at the years wasted in prison, but I know better. If you served years, sometimes decades in prison for a crime you did not commit, could you completely escape bitterness? I couldn’t.
Anyway, those wrongfully convicted deserve compensation from the criminal justice jurisdiction (usually the county, because almost all prosecutors are county officials) that malfunctioned. (I wish the law would evolve so that those responsible for a wrongful conviction–a prosecutor, a police detective, a crime laboratory analyst, etc.–would have to pay personally. But that won’t happen.)
Allowing an individual who is broken emotionally from an unjust prison stay, who possesses few job skills, and who lacks money for shelter to re-enter society without assistance is heartless. It is also a recipe for trouble.
“It is also a recipe for trouble.”
I’m guessing this is the principle reason that any government agency would award lump sum payments as they did in Doswell’s and Harrington’s case. As you point out, the idea of placing a broke ex-con with no professional skills onto the street and admonishing them to “be good” is absurd. At that point one might think prison — or the threat of prison — is a more attractive option than homelessness or worse.
Your idea of holding prosecutors, police detectives, crime laboratory analysts, etc., accountable is interesting. Assuming — in the case of an exoneration — they’ve been proven guilty of misconduct, why wouldn’t they be held accountable? Do you know of any individual cases where prosecutors etc. have been held financially accountable?
Thanks for your input, Steve.
Prosecutors being held financially accountable for the damage to lives they cause when wrongful convictions occur? Not to my knowledge, Matt, not even when judges determine that prosecutors have knowingly bent or broken the rules.
The U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have repeatedly ruled that prosecutors (and other government officials) enjoy nearly absolute immunity from lawsuits. In theory, I understand why prosecutors, police detectives, judges, etc., should be granted immunity from lawsuits; nobody in the citizenry wants those inside the criminal justice system acting based on fear of litigation filed against them.
In practice, though, no legal liability and no effective disciplinary agency within the criminal justice realm mean immoral and illegal actions by those who are supposed to carry out justice go unpunished. I believe we can find a better balance, and will continue to address the imbalance on my T/S blog “In Justice.”
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] True Slant – Restitution for those wrongfully accused. [...]