home

The Meaning of Exoneration

In response to news coverage of the 133 death row inmates who have been exonerated and spared execution, death penalty proponents make the argument (pdf) that the list of exonerated inmates is overly inclusive because it includes inmates whose convictions were reversed but whose actual innocence was never conclusively established.

Dan Rodricks at the Baltimore Sun contacted the Death Penalty Information Center, which keeps track of the exoneration count, to ask for a response to that criticism. The DPIC explained what it means to be "exonerated" and therefore included in the count:

[more ...]

The defendants were convicted, given a burden of guilt, and then that burden was lifted when they were acquitted at a re-trial or the prosecution dropped all charges after the conviction was reversed. These are not individuals who received a lesser sentence or who remained guilty of a lesser charge related to the same set of circumstances. All guilt was lifted by the same system that had imposed it in the first place.

Those who argue that some of the exonerated might actually be guilty, either because the jury at the retrial got it wrong or because charges were dropped because evidence of guilt had grown stale, are missing the point.

This notion of innocence, that an individual is innocent unless proven guilty, is a bedrock principle of our constitution and our societal protection against abusive state power. One does not lose the status of innocence merely because a prosecutor or other individuals retain a suspicion of guilt. Of course, it is true that this list makes no god-like determination of knowing exactly what happened in the original crime. Such perfect knowledge of past events is impossible, either to absolutely prove that a person did or did not do an act. We do not try to make a subjective judgment of what we think happened in the crime. We are merely reporting that in a great many cases the justice system convicted an individual and sentenced them to death, but when the process that arrived at that conclusion was reviewed, the conviction and sentence were thrown out. The individual, who often came close to execution, could not even be convicted of a traffic violation. Surely, that should be a cause of concern in applying the death penalty.

Rodricks concurs:

However you shake this, at least 133 people were put on Death Row and slated for execution who should not have been there. These were near-fatal mistakes, in the eyes of our system, way too much imperfection in the area of criminal justice, above all, that requires perfection.

The risk of a wrongful exoneration is trivial compared to the risk of a wrongful execution. When Justice Scalia wrote that “[o]ne cannot have a system of criminal punishment without accepting the possibility that someone will be punished mistakenly," he evinced a willingness to accept that risk. The risk of executing an innocent person is unacceptable in a just society. If even one of the 133 exonerated persons was actually innocent, that's one too many, and it's sufficient proof of the injustice of the death penalty.

< WH Reaction To Biden Comments On Israel Bombing Iran | Steve McNair Shooting Update >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Isn't it swell (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 03:03:10 PM EST
    that Scalia is willing to take that risk on behalf of other folk. Whatta guy!

    His humanity (none / 0) (#16)
    by JamesTX on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 06:32:43 PM EST
    really shines when he talks like that.

    Parent
    An argument that proves too much (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 03:06:16 PM EST
    When Justice Scalia wrote that "[o]ne cannot have a system of criminal punishment without accepting the possibility that someone will be punished mistakenly," he evinced a willingness to accept that risk. The risk of executing an innocent person is unacceptable in a just society.

    Okay, but the risk of imprisoning an innocent person for life is also unacceptable in a just society.

    It's often argued that it's possible for an innocent person sentenced to life to get exonerated at some point, whereas once you execute someone there's no way to take it back.  While I'd rather get released after 10 or 20 years of unjust imprisonment than never get released at all, both scenarios are completely unacceptable.

    We have a system that deprives people of their freedom, sometimes for the duration of their natural lives.  We know that some percentage of the people sentenced to life in prison are actually innocent, and that there is no guarantee that we will be able to rectify our mistakes at any point before they die.  Yet virtually everyone accepts this system, even given the risk - heck, not risk, more like mathematical certainty - that innocent people will spend the rest of their lives in jail as a result.

    So I think Scalia is right.  Unless you're willing to radically reinvent the entire concept of criminal justice as we know it, you're tacitly accepting the fact that innocent people will be deprived of their freedom.  If you're willing to accept that prospect - and it's scary, to be honest - accepting the risk of executing an innocent person doesn't seem like that much further of a leap.

    Really? (4.50 / 2) (#5)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 03:17:35 PM EST
    If you're willing to accept that prospect - and it's scary, to be honest - accepting the risk of executing an innocent person doesn't seem like that much further of a leap.

    It seems like a huge leap to me. The difference between lights on or lights off. Night and day..

    Even if an innocent is in jail for life, he or she can develop as a person, spiritually, intellectually, physically etc. Also there is also a chance of contributing to society through writing, artmaking etc.

    Death on the other hand leaves no room for anything.

    Parent

    Valid points (none / 0) (#7)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 03:43:05 PM EST
    but I still believe that imprisonment takes away about 95% of what it means to be human.

    I'm sure we all agree that life imprisonment is very, very serious business.  Given that, it just doesn't sit right with me that people will argue for zero tolerance of error when it comes to the death penalty, but that if we're "only" talking about imprisonment, somehow it's acceptable that we screw up once in a while.  It seems to me that we ought to be equally tolerant or intolerant of error in either case.

    Parent

    I am very (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by JamesTX on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 07:11:25 PM EST
    concerned about that. I do believe the interest we are seeing in death penalty cases is a good sign, because it shows that people are at least beginning to think. There are signs of a break with the conservative revolution ideas about criminal justice. Under conservative rule, there was simply no concept of wrongful conviction. It didn't matter. It wasn't discussed.

    But the death penalty exonerations won't go far in solving the real problem, because the vast majority of human pain and suffering from wrongful conviction is far below the level of those cases. Most cases of wrongful conviction are currently considered not important enough to worry about or investigate. The most common injustice is the person who serves some prison sentence and then lives the rest of their lives as an economic slave with a felony record. Their cases aren't important enough for anyone to worry about, and they are in truly hopeless circumstances.

    The public thinks the only relevant consequence of conviction is jail. If most of them had to live two weeks with a felony record, they would understand that the worst part of being convicted has nothing to do with jail.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 04:25:30 PM EST
    95% of what it means to be human.

    I'll agree, but that is the perspective of someone sitting outside of a cage. Once incarcerated, an innocent facing life or death the percentage changes for many. More like 95% human and alive,  over 0% human. Most of us are quite adaptable, imo, particularly when there is no choice save for suicide. Most do not choose suicide.

    Many who have been exonerated are quite happy to be free. I am always amazed, shocked in fact,  when someone who was wrongly imprisoned appears to hold no grudge, and are just happy to be free. That seems to happen more times than not, from what I have read.

    Parent

    It is perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by JamesTX on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 06:54:11 PM EST
    hard to understand for those who have a real expectation of justice, or are actually able to maintain a belief that they will not be victimized in that way. People wrongly caught up in the criminal justice system usually have no such expectation. It is impossible to maintain your sanity in the criminal justice system if you believe the myths which the public uses to reason about criminal justice. In order to survive, you simply have to change the way you think. Anger and bitterness will only cause your own mental state to deteriorate. In order to survive, you have to develop values and motivations that are not dependent on the expectation of justice, so being the victim of injustice must become irrelevant to one's larger life goals. The average person can afford to believe the fantasies about how the criminal justice system works. People who are wrongly convicted must grow up and realize those are all lies, and they have to find some way to live in spite of that knowledge. You and I can afford to sit around and theorize about whether the system is fair or not. A person wrongly convicted doesn't have that luxury. They know it isn't fair, and they have to face the consequences of that flaw every day. In order to stay sane, they have to find some way to accept that there is no justice in our legal system, and they have to learn to be happy and go on living anyway. The childish myths of "justice" which the rest of us use to keep ourselves comfortable is something they don't have any time for. They must move on.

    Parent
    Rehabilitation? That won't fly here I'm afraid. (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 03:46:59 PM EST
    For some crimes, it does not matter (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by nyjets on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 04:06:01 PM EST
    For some criminals and for some crimes, rehabilitation should not be considered. Either the crime(s) is(are) to heinous or the criminal will always be a danger to society.

    Parent
    Rehabilitation of an Innocent? (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 04:17:45 PM EST
    Only from a prosecutor...

    Parent
    At least when imprisoning a person for life (none / 0) (#4)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 03:11:23 PM EST
    there is the chance that if he is wrongfully imprisoned he might actually be freed. Death is fairly permanent and really can't be taken back after the fact.

    I think Scalia has it wrong. Furthermore, I don't think that he should be assuming the risk on behalf of people that might be wrongfully put to death.

    Parent

    Scalia's statement (none / 0) (#6)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 03:39:52 PM EST
    is just as true, in my estimation, if the topic is life imprisonment as opposed to the death penalty.  That's why Scalia referred simply to "a system of criminal punishment" - even if your system has no death penalty, you still have to accept the possibility that innocent people will be punished if you want to dole out any punishment at all.

    In fact, it seems to me that many people view the possibility of wrongful execution as some sort of iron-clad argument against the death penalty, but decline to come to grips with the same argument in the context of life imprisonment.  It's not as though we catch most wrongful convictions a year or two down the road and everyone just goes about their business, unless of course we made the foolish mistake of executing them beforehand.  Odds are that if you're wrongfully convicted, you're going to stay in prison for the duration.

    Parent

    The difference to me (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 04:39:56 PM EST
    is possibility. If we incarcerate someone wrongly there is always a possibility down the line that he might be later be exonerated based on evidence introduced. That possibility doesn't exist once you kill someone. There isn't any takeback once you put someone to death. You snuff out all their possibilities.

    Parent
    TL is against LWOP as well, (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 05:31:43 PM EST
    as I've learned over the years.

    It would seem their MO is to work to get corporal punishment outlawed and if/when that is accomplished they'll then work to get LWOP outlawed.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#14)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 06:25:21 PM EST
    Scalia's statement is still true even if your system of punishment limits all sentences to 10 years tops!  You still have to be able to accept that you're going to be chopping 10 years off the lives of innocent people, maybe the only 10 years they've got.

    Once upon a time, there actually was no such thing as a prison sentence longer than 2 weeks or so, for the simple reason that before modern sanitation anything longer than 2 weeks in prison was effectively a death sentence.  So basically, there was no middle ground at all between a slap on the wrist and the death penalty!  How happy the British must have been to come up with banishment to Australia as an intermediate sort of punishment, but that didn't come until later.

    By the by, you said corporal punishment where I think you meant capital... no small distinction to my 2-year old, I'm sure...

    Parent

    Ha! Yes. Capital. (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 06:32:33 PM EST
    hogwash. (none / 0) (#25)
    by cpinva on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 03:50:36 AM EST
    Scalia's statement is still true even if your system of punishment limits all sentences to 10 years tops!  You still have to be able to accept that you're going to be chopping 10 years off the lives of innocent people, maybe the only 10 years they've got.

    who's "accepting" this? you? scalia? the rest of the nearly 300 million odd citizens of the U.S.? maybe you, scalia and sar? ok, i count, um, er.............3, so far. that there are only so many scarce, allocable resources available, to investigate every single claim of wrongful incarceration, shouldn't presume "acceptance". all it means is that more resources are needed.

    i'll thank scalia, you and scar to keep your baseless presumptions to yourselves, don't you dare presume to speak for me.

    Parent

    Sorry (2.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 07:27:19 AM EST
    The fact that we incarcerate innocent people is an unavoidable feature of the system.  By choosing to maintain our penal system, we most certainly accept that issue as part of it, no matter how many haughty speeches we make about how we're not happy about it.

    "We do the best we can with our limited resources" is a statement of agreement with Scalia, like it or not.

    Parent

    Am I "sar" and/or "scar"? (none / 0) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:37:09 AM EST
    If so, when did I speak for you?

    Nevermind, you were on a roll...

    Parent

    Easy for Hale to say. (1.00 / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:46:16 AM EST
    His daughter wasn't brutalized by one of the five who "escaped unpunished."

    Are you saying that it IS acceptable (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:47:47 AM EST
    for innocent people to be put to death as long as we net people that are guilty of something in the process?

    Are you willing to volunteer your family members up as sacrificial lambs or is it conditional on it being someone who you can pretend isn't important because you don't know them personally?

    Parent

    Do you always ask questions of others (none / 0) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:45:14 AM EST
    that you then fantasize answers for in that other person's stead?

    My point is Hale's bumper-sticker quote is woefully insufficient. That actual thought ought to be applied.

    Parent

    and you know this how, exactly? (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by cpinva on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 03:57:16 AM EST
    His daughter wasn't brutalized by one of the five who "escaped unpunished."

    lord hale's position is the basis of our codified law; presumption of innocence, requirement that the state prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a person is guilty of the crime.

    whether or not his daughter was an innocent victim is completely irrelevant. of course, you knew that already.

    for myself, i prefer to be pretty damn certain that the people executed and incarcerated, by the state in my name, are actually guilty of the crime they were convicted of. it's a matter of public safety, morality and economics.

    Parent

    for myself, i prefer to be pretty damn certain that the people executed and incarcerated, by the state in my name, are actually guilty of the crime they were convicted of.
    Odd. Except for your apparent slavish fealty to Hale's bon mot, we - and, I believe, the overwhelming majority of Americans - are in agreement.

    Parent
    Indeed (1.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:22:22 AM EST
    Nor was his daughter the innocent one who died, I'd imagine.

    Parent
    Well, that does it. (none / 0) (#39)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:51:58 AM EST
    Whatever your pont is, I'm now convinced.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    I giess this is the first time (none / 0) (#1)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 02:59:37 PM EST
    I have heard of the term 'wrongful exoneration.' Seems to be an oxymoron.

    only to a defense lawyer (none / 0) (#20)
    by diogenes on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 07:24:47 PM EST
    You know, guilty people do sometimes escape conviction, no matter how stacked people think the criminal justice system is.  It's a sign of 1960's style "Cops are pigs" thinking to assume that convictions can be wrongful but exonerations cannot because somehow they are always "right", "good" or some such thing.

    Parent
    It all depends (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by TChris on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 05:44:49 AM EST
    upon whether you believe in the Bill of Rights.  Little things like due process and the presumption of innocence should have meaning to more people in this country than the defense lawyers.

    Sure, guilty defendants get acquitted and perhaps some guilty convicts have been exonerated, but those outcomes are "right," "good" or some such thing because the criminal justice system is supposed to err on the side of allowing the guilty to retain their liberty rather than convicting the innocent.  If a unanimous jury isn't satisfied that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt after considering the evidence at a fair trial, it is "right" and "good" that the defendant is deemed not guilty.

    This is not a sign of 1960's style "Cops are pigs" thinking.  This is a sign of the Framers' 18th Century thinking that the Bill of Rights was needed to provide fundamental protections of liberty.  That whacky liberal thinking protects you too.  

    Parent

    I am nitpicking however (none / 0) (#30)
    by nyjets on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 07:19:59 AM EST
    In the absract, I understand what you are saying, However, it is never good when a guilty person escapes punishment. A guilty person escaping punishment is as bad as an innocent person being punished.
    Steps should be taken that both never happens.

    Parent
    not even (none / 0) (#35)
    by sj on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 10:40:25 AM EST
    A guilty person escaping punishment is as bad as an innocent person being punished.

    Couldn't be more wrong, imo.

    Parent

    not the Bill of Rights (none / 0) (#42)
    by diogenes on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 07:51:25 PM EST
    I don't think that Jefferson would have looked at a guilty man who was exonerated and said that this was a good outcome.  He would have said that it was a wrongful outcome but that these things sometimes happen as a necessary evil to maintain the integrity of the entire system.

    Parent
    doesn't answer the question (none / 0) (#19)
    by diogenes on Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 07:18:50 PM EST
    There's a big difference between 133 people who are guilty of murder by clear and convincing evidence but not beyond a reasonable doubt and 133 people who are entirely innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.  
    A lot of people will be acquitted at retrial when evidence is stale and eyewitnesses for their own reasons recant (though you never hear of them being prosecuted for perjury for the presumed false testimony at the first trial).  
    Certainly some of the 133 are bona fide innocent (i.e. newly analyzed DNA found the killer was someone else).  I wonder how many.


    Sorry Dudley. (none / 0) (#29)
    by TChris on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 05:56:11 AM EST
    Your comment was deleted. This isn't the right forum for you to promote yourself as an expert witness, and I don't have time to refute all the lies you included in your post.  


    Scalia should be sent to Devil's Island (none / 0) (#33)
    by Baal on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 08:29:42 AM EST