
How inmate Michael Morton lost 25 years of his life - monsterix
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/justice/exonerated-prisoner-update-michael-morton/index.html
======
girvo
The prosecutor should serve at least 25 years in jail for withholding key
evidence and ruining this persons life. Christ these stories make me so upset.
:/

~~~
brazzy
Great. Now you know exactly how the jury felt when they ruined this persons
life based on a complete lack of evidence that he committed a crime (never
mind the withheld evidence against it).

Quoth the article: "We all felt so strongly that this was justice for
Christine and that we were doing the right thing," says Mark Landrum, who was
the jury foreman.

Righteous fury is the worst enemy of justice.

~~~
nate_meurer
I agree with your last sentence, but I think it's a bit out of place here. The
OP didn't call for a disproportionate sentence. Prosecutor Ken Anderson
deliberate falsified a case that cost Mr Morton 25 years of his life. A 25
year sentence for Ken Anderson would seem perfectly reasonable to me.

~~~
brazzy
The OP _is_ calling for a disproportionate sentence. 25 years is more than
many murderers get.

It seems reasonable to you because you are in fact judging this case
emotionally, not reasonably. Your empathy towards the victim causes you to
want revenge, believing it to be justice.

~~~
girvo
People in power over the rest of us should be held to higher standards. That
should be the trade-off. As it stands, it is not the case, and there are few
consequences for actions like these. That should change.

Oh, and by gunning for Mr Morton, the actual murderer went free, and killed
someone else.

~~~
brazzy
> Oh, and by gunning for Mr Morton, the actual murderer went free, and killed
> someone else.

This is something that should be told again and again and again to the juries
in murder trials.

I think it's just as much a scandal that the jury convicted Morton without
substantial evidence as that the prosecutor withheld potentially exonerating
evidence.

------
marquis
There is an excellent longform article on this. Heartbreaking.

[http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-
one?full...](http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-
one?fullpage=1)

[http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-
two?full...](http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-
two?fullpage=1)

~~~
thaumasiotes
> Their last meeting was so brief that Eric [Morton's son] and Marylee
> [Morton's wife's sister] barely sat down. Eric, who was fifteen, was unable
> to look Michael in the eye. “I don’t want to come here anymore,” he choked
> out.

I remember going with my parents (I was in high school) to see my grandfather
and deal with the hospital -- he had been hospitalized for a reason I don't
recall and they found that his mind was damaged to the point that they
couldn't overlook it. He said hello, tried to make small talk: how are things,
do you have a girlfriend, any interesting developments in your life. Small
talk is not one of my skills. I had nothing to say; I very often have nothing
to say. And he turned and started admonishing my parents for forcing me to
come: "He doesn't want to be here. We live in different worlds."

It hurt, very badly. I was there because I wanted to be there.

I can't imagine, even after twelve years, _telling_ your father that visiting
him twice a year is a waste of your time. What a staggering blow. No matter
what Marylee believed (clearly, in this case, that Morton was guilty), the
decent thing to do would have been to _not discuss it with his son_.

------
jwdunne
Why is it possible for either side to withhold evidence? Why is all evidence
not put on a table for both sides to dissect?

Genuine questions. Currently it seems like a competition. This isn't
competitive ground, as much as I see lawyers essentially competing over number
of clears/convictions. This is about people's lives!

~~~
thaumasiotes
Evidence isn't conjured into existence by the judge and then withheld by
lawyers. It's discovered by the lawyers. It's not a logical possibility to
prevent them from failing to bring it to everyone else's attention.

~~~
jwdunne
I always thought the police gather evidence? I remember from my own
interactions the police are always present. This is in the UK where processes
may be much different...

------
csmuk
Re proesecutor: _" He also agreed to a $500 fine, 500 hours of community
service, and the loss of his law license, according to the Innocence Project,
a legal clinic affiliated with Yeshiva University's Cardozo Law School."_

Sorry not enough. This is one place that "an eye for an eye" should be used.
Screw Ghandi's opinion on the subject. The guy was an asshole through and
through who ruined two people's already ruined lives.

~~~
brazzy
I bet there were people who campaigned for the innocent man to be executed
based on exactly this state of mind.

~~~
wavefunction
I don't see the equivalency. The prosecutor abused his official position and
the legal system to personally advance his career. If anything, we should hold
our officials and authorities to even harsher standards to ensure equitable
treatment under the law.

~~~
forktheif
If anything, we should fix the systems that allow miscarriages of justice like
this to happen.

Yet revenge seems to be the first motivation of most people. Making things
worse instead of making things better.

~~~
wavefunction
We should, but part of fixing the system that allows these things to happen is
penalizing "bad actors." The prosecutor hid evidence from the judge, not just
the defense. In addition, a brutal murderer is still free among the populace.
What if they've killed again in the interim?

~~~
VLM
"What if they've killed again in the interim?"

That happened. The actual murderer killed another woman before he was caught.
The cost to society is not just 25 years of this dudes life but add one dead
woman to the list.

Of course you can't prove that merely exonerating one dude would somehow have
automagically resulted in the cops catching the actual killer.

------
brianbreslin
Slightly (only slightly) off-topic: what is it going to take for us to see a
complete or at least large overhaul of the justice system in the US? We're
incarcerating too many people for minor crimes and it is causing a ripple
effect on poverty and economic growth (not to mention ruining TONS of people's
lives).

~~~
melling
Can you be more specific? What minor crimes are you talking about? What's the
breakdown of crimes for the the current prison population? Have any references
to articles that have a deeper discussion so we can come up to speed?

~~~
aestra
It is well know the US has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
Both per capita and by sheer numbers. All the breakdown you can ever ask for
is here.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States)

This part is what people are usually talking about:

Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated
population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had
been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison
population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more
prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum
sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole
or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from
serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement
for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state
prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. 49 percent of sentenced state
inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force
behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on
drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold
since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were
convicted on drug charges.

~~~
melling
Burglary, and theft in general, is a non-violent crime. If you're caught 3
times for that, shouldn't the punishment be more severe? Similarly, selling
heroin is a non-violent crime. It would be helpful to see a more detailed
breakdown on the effects of the "war on crime."

By the way, I understand that the "three strikes" laws have had some
unintended consequences and should be revisited.

~~~
aestra
I don't have an opinion on either, I am just presenting what most people talk
about when they speak about the rising prison population of the United States.

It can be a snowball effect as well, putting people in prison early for say,
drug use at a young age, creates a prison culture, where the person keeps
going back to prison. If that person didn't go to prison in the first place
they might not be put in a position to keep breaking the law. This is all
really a guess on my part, but I feel that it _might_ be the case.

------
middleclick
> Morton was freed in October 2011. He was 57 years old. "I thank God this
> wasn't a capital case," he said.

I don't mean to turn this into an atheism debate, but personally, as someone
who is an atheist, I find it fascinating how people still manage to have faith
in God after such a case even after they spent 25 years of their life for a
crime they did not commit. Don't get me wrong - the faith people have really
amazes me and in a way, it helps keep them sane but it is fascinating
nevertheless.

~~~
brazzy
According to the article, Morton only became religious while he was in prison.
I guess starting to believe that there's something more important than the
real world is one way of coping with a staggering injustice suffered in it.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
In Texas prisons, religious ministries are allowed time and facilities to
preach to inmates. The chapel in Texas prisons is often one of the only air-
conditioned spaces (other than the library). Consequently, (I suspect)
religious participation among inmates is higher than it might otherwise be.

source: I was a correctional officer in Texas for a couple of years.

------
wil421
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

That was said in 1765, I think we are regressing. Power hungry police and
prosecutors are getting worse. They only care about making arrests and getting
convictions, innocence doesn't matter. I am surprised that the prosecutor was
actually charged and then convicted.

~~~
melling
You are offering an opinion that has no basis in fact. Innocent people going
to jail isn't a modern problem. We must certainly try to solve the problem but
complaining that "power hungry police and prosecutors are getting worse" adds
no value or intelligence to the conversation, and you can't even prove that we
are worse off today than 100 years ago, for example.

Also, why would you be surprised that the prosecutor was charged and
convicted? Wouldn't it stand by your reasoning that the other "power hungry
prosecutors who only caring about making arrests and getting convictions"
would jump at the chance to convict him?

~~~
girvo
The OP itself says that the prosecutor (now Judge) being convicted was a
_huge_ change in procedure. It never happens.

Based on your posts here, I'm getting the feeling that you are okay with the
criminal justice system in the USA. You ask a lot of questions, I want to know
what your stance is (honestly, I do!).

~~~
melling
I don't have a stance. Like most people, it's not something that I really give
much thought to. I'm trying to cut through the storm of complaining so I can
get to the facts. What problems are you trying to solve beyond the fact that
we never want someone who is innocent to go to jail?

~~~
girvo
Personally, my opinion is that prosecutors have incentives that don't align
with the good of society (if we take "Innocent people should not go to jail"
as a good thing, and a worthy goal). Their incentives are to convict as many
people as possible; this case we're discussing is a good example of that
effect.

If you take a look at this[0], you can see that per capita incarceration in
the US has grown a _lot_ , especially over the past 30 years. So its not a
baseless accusation we're talking about here. There is _something_ driving it,
and if you do a bit more research on the topic (I studied Law, so this
interests me a lot), you'll find a lot more backing it up as well.

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._incarceration_rates_1...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png)

~~~
melling
So, you are saying that because prosecutors are trying to convict "as many
people as possible", the problem is that too many innocent people are going to
jail. I think we've established this isn't the problem. People are committing
"crimes", but many people feel that the crimes are too harsh. For example,
someone mentioned that a crack user gets 90 days while a cocaine user only
gets 30 days.

Also, in the story about which we are discussing, the prosecutor broke the
law. In my opinion, his punishment should have been harsher.

------
kenshiro_o
very sad story. I still can't believe the prosecuter only served 5 days in
jail and paid a minor fine. These injustices are crushing my heart. I do
really want to believe in fairness and Justice but after reading such a piece
I cannot maintain those illusions.

What can we do as individuals and as a society to improve the Justice system
and help rehabilitate former criminals? This is an area where we should also
have start-ups looking to make a better tomorrow. Isn't that also part of
"Changing The World"?

------
sevenminaya
Here's a perfect case where you would want Morton had become a mastermind in
jail, to come out to frame the prosecutor for murder so he can go thru the
same thing.

------
jessaustin
I'm not sure about heaven, but American prosecuting attorneys are one reason I
believe in hell.

------
josu
These things scare me more than terrorism

