
The Central Park Five - wellokthen
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/arts/television/when-they-see-us.html
======
40acres
I really resented my parents growing up because they would never let me play
outside. I was raised in Central Brooklyn in the 90s and stories like The
Central Park Five and Abner Louima were cautionary tales in our neighborhood.
We were too broke for summer programs so I spent a lot of my summers watching
daytime TV, playing video games and browsing the internet. Brooklyn has
changed a lot since the Regan / Bush days, but when you look closely you can
see the scars of crime hysteria and the drug war still here.

~~~
pimlottc
To be clear, since it might not be obvious to some readers: the fear your
parents had about playing outside is what the police might do to you, as
opposed to concerns about crime or general violence, is that correct?

~~~
40acres
Yes, and for good reason. NYC had a high crime rate in the 80s and 90s, once I
was able to have my own day to day autonomy (mid teens, mid 2000s) the city
was much safer.

I understand the push for crime reduction policies, lots of minorities (who
are victims of crimes themselves) wanted a tougher approach. Unfortunately the
politics of the day was that the cruelest types of punishments won out. Three
strikes and stop and frisk have devastated the community.

~~~
burfog
Stop-and-frisk feels like a major violation of rights, but it does work well.
I think that doing this by surprise, or around where people live, is
problematic. Setting up a limited region, with posted signs, is pretty
reasonable. For example, the park might be such a region.

Three strikes doesn't seem to be a violation of rights, and it simply makes
sense. Removing bad people will improve the community. Some people simply will
not abide by the rules of civilized society, and it is a dangerous mistake to
pretend otherwise.

~~~
mises
If you're in America, that would (arguably) be a violation of your
constitutional rights. Basically, the gov't isn't supposed to bother you until
you committed a crime (until they have reasonable suspicion & a warrant or are
in hot pursuit). The same thing bothers me about databases, surveillance,
biometrics, TSA, stop-and-frisk: the government has no business treating me
like a criminal, collecting my information, etc. until they've got a warrant.

------
jwr
I'm puzzled: did they actually put five people in jail, even though there was
actually one perpetrator?

Convicting the wrong person is one (terrifying) mistake, but making a five-
fold mistake in the number of criminals is… incredible.

~~~
throwaway622019
> I'm puzzled: did they actually put five people in jail, even though there
> was actually one perpetrator?

It's actually a pretty complicated case. I'd recommend reading both the
recommendation from Morgenthau to vacate the convictions[1] (which ended up
happening) and the Armstrong report[2] (which came to the conclusion that the
Central Park Five were most likely involved in the attack). Doctors involved
in the case as well as the victim still believe that there were more than one
attacker[3] (the victim has no memory of the attack). The only person who's
DNA was found there (who wasn't part of the five) is the person who claims
that there was only one attacker (he confessed to the crime and made the claim
that he was the only attacker after meeting one of the five in prison).

Like I said, the best way to get an idea about the case is to read the two
reports. Most of the news articles that cover the story don't do a great job.

[1]
[http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/wise.pdf](http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/wise.pdf)
[2]
[https://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Armstrong.pdf](https://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Armstrong.pdf)
[3] [https://abcnews.go.com/US/case-settled-1989-central-park-
jog...](https://abcnews.go.com/US/case-settled-1989-central-park-jogger-
believes-person/story?id=63077131)

~~~
throwaway987665
The Armstrong report is problematic. Its main goal is to justify the conduct
of the NYPD and it does so by inventing new theories of the crime. In
presenting the report the committee members themselves said that they could
not rule out the possibility that the defendants are completely innocent of
the crime (which is the definition of “reasonable doubt “). For some reporting
on this committee at the time see

[https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/nyregion/new-slant-on-
jog...](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/nyregion/new-slant-on-jogger-case-
lacks-official-certainty.html)

~~~
rayiner
The Armstrong Report was also authored by someone who had previously worked in
the Knapp Commission, which investigated and exposed corruption in the NYPD.
Additionally, reasonable doubt isn’t the standard in the court of public
opinion and history. Obviously the conviction itself must live or die based on
whether reasonable doubt exists. But if we want to sit here on a message board
and speculate about what really happened, the reports conclusion of what
“probably” happened may be a better standard. (There is an important
distinction between the state’s failure to meet the burden of proof, and
complete exoneration, as recent goings-on with Bob Muller demonstrate.)

------
rayiner
One of the things I hate about coverage of false convictions is that all the
nuance gets lost. It’s important to note that the Central Park five were
convicted of multiple attacks in the park, of which the rape of the jogger was
one. Their responsibility for the other felonies are not seriously contested:
[https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-myth-of-the-central-
park-f...](https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-myth-of-the-central-park-five)

> Was what happened to the Central Park Five completely wrong, or simply
> incomplete? I read Sarah Burns’ book, The Central Park Five, expecting a
> plaintiff’s brief, and it is that—she was an intern for lawyers pursuing
> civil claims on their behalf as a college student, in the summer of 2003.
> She believes passionately that the Five hadn’t raped the jogger; she is more
> circumspect in her treatment of their other felonies: “At some point, the
> metal bar from Korey’s house that Yusef had carried in the park had been
> used to beat Laughlin.” She is enthusiastic in her support of Ryan’s
> assessment, but doesn’t include this quote on their conduct that night: “The
> other crimes committed on April 19 were grave and inexcusable—unprovoked
> attacks on strangers, apparently undertaken for the fun of it, which left
> some terrorized, two knocked into unconsciousness, and one seriously
> injured.”

Obviously that doesn’t justify the false conviction or some of the associated
tactics. But it is important context. As we saw with “Making of a Murderer,”
these investigations are complex. It’s easy to portray a one-sided narrative
that obscures how the justice system can be led to the wrong result, to make
it seem like this black box that capriciously chews up and spits out totally
random people. Usually, when it happens, there is an explanation. The
explanation might involve racism, or human error, or misconduct. But it’s
almost never _totally_ the result of those things.

~~~
bilbo0s
Yeah but for all we know, they didn't commit those crimes either. I mean,
they, "confessed", to a lot right. There were "witnesses", to them doing a lot
right.

They may have done all of what they confessed to, or they may have been
tortured and done none of it. That's the problem with bent police forces and
court systems, there's just a baseline confidence issue. That baseline
confidence issue creates the conditions that make people perfectly justified
in being skeptical. And winning that confidence back is extremely difficult.
In fact, depending on how bad the conditions are, it may not even be possible.

When torture is allowed into the judicial process either overtly or covertly,
the integrity of the entire system eventually degrades over time.

EDIT:

On re-reading that, it sounded bad. I didn't mean that they _might_ have been
tortured. I understand that torture was part of the process. So perhaps I
should have written:

"...or they may have done none of it, and the torture prompted confessions..."

------
xrd
Really fascinating to read the comments here.

Lots of discussions about whether they truly were guilty of this crime or
another.

Not much being said about the fact that they were children and that even if
they did commit another crime at another time or were witnesses to the crime
or whatever, it's not necessarily a "good thing" that they were in jail long
into adulthood.

Hacker News showing its true colors here.

~~~
rayiner
None were children. All were older teenagers. The central requirement of
criminal culpability is being able to intellectually distinguish rights from
wrong. There was no indication that they were too young to properly understand
that difference.

~~~
xrd
Hey, I'm not a lawyer but apparently you are.

I'll post these questions and promise to honestly read what you respond with.
I'm not trolling.

Correct my thinking:

They were 14, 15, 16 at the time. Older teenagers you said. Do you agree with
the fact (is it?) that one of them was actually younger than 16 and questioned
without his parents present? Does that matter at all to you as a lawyer? If
you feel they are not children, do you feel our system should change the
definition of consensual sexual activity for minors, for example. I think
there are many indications that brain development is not complete by 18 or 21
and there is good reason to categorize them as children.

Again, not a lawyer: isn't the typical time served for rape 5.6 years? Battery
between 1-25 years. Was it normal and just for them to be behind bars for 6 to
13 years, when the city settled and released them? Another way to ask, were
these sentences just (not asking for your opinion personally but is this
typical for those types of cases)

And, am I wrong to question these convictions when no DNA evidence connected
them to the rape, but Reyes was definitely linked later? Is the true story
there obscured and am I missing it?

My sense after reading about this case for years is that their sentences and
the handling of this case were improper if you care about criminal justice in
the US. And that it changed our justice system for the worse. That's my thesis
here, not that there is a grey area about this case specifically.

~~~
rayiner
> Hey, I'm not a lawyer but apparently you are. I'll post these questions and
> promise to honestly read what you respond with. I'm not trolling. Correct my
> thinking: They were 14, 15, 16 at the time. Older teenagers you said. Do you
> agree with the fact (is it?) that one of them was actually younger than 16
> and questioned without his parents present?

Yes. But he (Salaam) claimed to be sixteen and produced a transit document to
that effect.

> Does that matter at all to you as a lawyer?

It matters, but that doesn’t mean it automatically invalidates the conviction
or the evidence. When an accused lies about their age and the police them
without a parent, that’s a violation of the law. (At least the law here in New
York.) But automatically vacating the conviction based on that would not be
fair to the state: the police proceeded in good faith, based on the accused’s
lie. So the judge tries to figure out whether that error was really
prejudicial enough to warrant excluding the evidence.

> If you feel they are not children, do you feel our system should change the
> definition of consensual sexual activity for minors, for example.

In Maryland, the age of consent is 14 for people who are close in age. That
recognizes that teenagers are able to consent to certain adult behavior. Now,
it’s 16 if the partner is much older, because there could be coercion. Here,
if there was a much older ringleader I’d support a more lenient treatment for
the teenagers.

> I think there are many indications that brain development is not complete by
> 18 or 21 and there is good reason to categorize them as children.

The question isn’t whether brain development is complete. The question is
whether it is sufficiently far along that they can understand the consequences
of their actions and distinguish right from wrong.

There is evidence that teenagers are, for example, more impulsive than adults.
But if you look at the data, adult criminals also tend to have problems with
impulse control. That’s not an excuse.

> Again, not a lawyer: isn't the typical time served for rape 5.6 years?
> Battery between 1-25 years. Was it normal and just for them to be behind
> bars for 6 to 13 years, when the city settled and released them?

If they were guilty of the other assaults of which they were convicted, I
don’t see that sentence as unreadable, especially given the concerted action.

> And, am I wrong to question these convictions when no DNA evidence connected
> them to the rape, but Reyes was definitely linked later? Is the true story
> there obscured and am I missing it?

I think they were probably not guilty of the rape, based on the DNA evidence.
So the vacated of the conviction was correct. But note that DNA testing was
pretty new and not routine during the original trial. Also note that the
evidence for their other convictions that occurred at the same time are
stronger. E.g., o e defendant was carrying a pipe that was used to beat
someone else at the park.

> My sense after reading about this case for years is that their sentences and
> the handling of this case were improper if you care about criminal justice
> in the US. And that it changed our justice system for the worse. That's my
> thesis here, not that there is a grey area about this case specifically.

It was definitely improper. But the facts are more complicated than the
cartoon villain version promoted in the press:
[https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-myth-of-the-central-
park-f...](https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-myth-of-the-central-park-five)

~~~
xrd
You mentioned the convicted were tied by evidence connecting them to the crime
scene regarding other crimes, right?

This article from NYT seems to directly contradict that, saying they were
convicted based on confessions.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/nyregion/new-slant-on-
jog...](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/nyregion/new-slant-on-jogger-case-
lacks-official-certainty.html)

What's missing? Is this inaccurate? Where can I read about the evidence you
are noting?

Edit: I misread the article, it doesn't say entirely based on confessions.
There is still lots of contradictory information in this article to things
said in other places here on HN.

~~~
rayiner
The motion to vacate the convictions actually has some of the evidence. The
conviction for the rape was mostly based on the confessions, but there was
also hair evidence. (Hair evidence isn’t very reliable.)
[https://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/CPJ...](https://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/CPJ.Morganthau.motion.12.5.02.doc).
I don’t think it’s in the motion, but there was also a witness, Melody
Jackson, who testified that one of the defendants told her (while incarcerated
waiting trial) that he hadn’t raped the victim, but had held her down while
another did. Also, another one of the young men arrested that night named one
of the accused as the rapist: [https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-myth-of-the-
central-park-f...](https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-myth-of-the-central-park-
five)

> In addition to the confessions, one of the other boys, while in the back of
> a patrol car, cried that he “didn’t do the murder,” but that he knew who
> did: Antron McCray. The boy beside him, Kevin Richardson, agreed: “Antron
> did it.” The jogger hadn’t yet been found. Later on, after Raymond Santana
> had been interrogated about the rape, he was being driven to another
> precinct. Without prompting, he blurted out, “I had nothing to do with the
> rape. All I did was feel her tits.”

However, several of the five were also convicted of other attacks. Indeed,
part of the motion to vacate rests on the notion that they couldn’t have
participated in the rape together, because they were involved in the other
incidents:

> And, beginning at about 9:24 p.m. and continuing until roughly 9:45, a
> series of four male joggers were set upon on the jogging path at the
> northern end of the Central Park Reservoir. Two of the male joggers escaped
> essentially unharmed, but two, Robert Garner and John Loughlin, were
> assaulted. Garner was not seriously hurt. Loughlin, however, was knocked to
> the ground, kicked, punched, and beaten with a pipe and stick. He was
> knocked unconscious, and sustained significant but not life-threatening
> injuries.

(It’s essentially undisputed that Salaam had carried a pipe into the park that
night.)

> 98\. An additional issue is raised by the other incidents which took place
> in the park. For while the nature and locations of those incidents made it
> seem logical to believe that the defendants had attacked the jogger, the
> timing of events made it hard to understand when they could have. Shortly
> after their initial entry into the park, the larger group of which the
> defendants were a part temporarily split up. As a result, not all of the
> defendants participated both in the incidents that occurred along the East
> Drive and in the attacks at the reservoir; but at least some of them did.
> Given the times when each of those events were estimated to have occurred,
> it is difficult to construct a scenario that would have allowed the
> defendants the time to interrupt their progression south, detour to the
> 102nd Street transverse, and commit a gang rape.

The whole document dump is here:
[http://interactive.nydailynews.com/project/central-park-
five](http://interactive.nydailynews.com/project/central-park-five). You’re
not going to find accurate commentary about this topic, so I’d go ahead and
read the primary materials. (For example, some of the facts Ann Coulter
recites in her article on this are factually correct, for example the fact
that the accused admitted to coming to the park to commit crimes and never
retracted that part. I’m not going to link it here because the article also
has a lot of garbage commentary.)

~~~
xrd
You've demonstrated a lot of good faith engagement with me. Thank you.

------
CalChris
The New York Times article doesn't mention the role Trump played in the story,
about his spending $85,000 placing ads calling for a return of the death
penalty.

 _Even after the exonerations, Trump has continued to maintain that the five
men had been criminals._

[http://time.com/5597843/central-park-five-trump-
history/](http://time.com/5597843/central-park-five-trump-history/)

~~~
pimlottc
> [http://time.com/5597843/central-park-five-trump-
> history/](http://time.com/5597843/central-park-five-trump-history/)

Warning, parent link contains auto-playing video. Even after you pause it,
it'll unpause itself after it finished buffering.

------
ncmncm
Trump was quoted recently saying he still thought they should have been
executed.

We owe these men, and the myriads who have experienced more and less, more
that could be repaid in a thosand years. Best start.

~~~
bilbo0s
Politicians say a lot of things in the US. Especially when it comes to black
guys. Obviously, not much of it is true, and I wouldn't put too much stock in
it, but the thing is...

as horrible as this may sound to say...

it can get a lot of votes.

~~~
watwut
He was not politician back then.

Edit: I don't mean it as defense people. Just that, he did not said it to gain
votes back then. He said it because that is what he believed and who he is,
nothing to do with politicians as a group.

Being genuine racist is not better then playing up racism for votes. Maybe
even worst in impact (as pretender will be less zealous in pushing for such
policies). Don't understand why people think otherwise.

~~~
evan_
He said this as recently as October 2016.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case#Acc...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case#Accusations_by_Donald_Trump)

~~~
watwut
I am not defending it. Just that, he did not said it to gain votes back then.
He said it because that is what he believed and who he is, nothing to do with
politicians as a group.

Being genuine racist is not better then playing up racism for votes. Maybe
even worst in impact (as pretender will be less zealous in pushing for such
policies). Don't understand why people think otherwise.

