False accusations, prosecutorial zealots, false convictions, prison terms for crimes that never happened

[JimG]

Now that the Kavanaugh hearings are finished, now that the #MeToo movement is winding down, maybe it’s time to reflect once again on how easy it can be to bring false charges. I need to re-read Dorothy Rabinowitz’s book, “No Crueler Tyranies.” It’s about sex abuse cases, including many cases of child sexual abuse in nursery schools. The unifying factor is that it’s about sex abuse that never happened, but for which people were falsely accused, convicted, and went to prison. Gerald Amirault, Mrs. Amirault, Kelly Michaels, Grant Snowden, Dr. Patrick Griffin, and others, who were convicted, went to prison, had their lives destroyed for crimes that never happened. Sealed transcripts of interviews with children wherein they were coaxed, coached, and drilled to recite fabricated stories for the benefit of the jury about imaginary events.

I hope that such false convictions and false imprisonment can never happen again. But they probably can. If you have an hour to kill, listen to Brian Lamb interview Dorothy Rabinowitz here:

Or better yet, read her book.

Edited to add: that weird photo at the link has nothing to do with anything. I guess youtube thought it was somehow pertinent.

 

[PJH_74]

Go talk to an abuse survivor(s) and then come back to me.

 

[GodSpawned]

I can’t see the #MeToo movement going anywhere, to be honest.
Maybe that just reflects who I follow on Twitter.

 

[JimG]

Go talk to an abuse survivor(s) and then come back to me.

What does that have to do with a woman who spent years in prison for abuse which never happened?

 

[glorybe]

Go talk to an abuse survivor(s) and then come back to me.

I’ve talked to plenty.
And here’s an eye opener with just the “A’s” from the National Registry of Exonerations (355 years in prison):
Joseph Abbitt… convicted of rape, exonerated after serving 14 years in prison
Warith Abdal…convicted of rape, exonerated after serving 16 years in prison
Christopher Abernathy… convicted of rape, false accusation, exonerated after wasting 28 years of his life in prison
Darryl Adams…convicted rape, false accusation, exonerated after serving 15 years in prison
Jarrett Adams - convicted rape, false accusation, exonerated after serving 7 years in prison
Kenneth Adams - convicted rape, exonerated after 18 years in prison
Gilbert Alejandro - convicted rape, false accusation, served 4 yrs in prison
Malcolm Alexander - convicted rape, false accusation, wasted 38 years in prison
Richard Alexander - convicted rape, served 3 years, exonerated with DNA
Albert Algarin - convicted rape, false accusation, served 5 yrs in prison
George Allen - convicted rape, false accusation, exonerated with DNA after 30 years in prison
Daniel Anderson - convicted rape, false accusation, exonerated w/ DNA after 33 yrs in prison
Marvin Anderson - convicted rape, exonerated with DNA after 20 years in prison
Randolph Arledge - convicted rape, false accusation, wasted 29 years of life in prison
Ralph Armstrong- convicted rape, false accusation, wasted 28 years of life in prison
Richard Armstrong - convicted rape, false accusation, exonerated after 6 years in prison
Herman Atkins - convicted rape, exonerated with DNA after 12 years in prison
Kenneth Atkins - convicted rape, false accusation, served 4 years
Steven Avery - convicted rape, exonerated after 18 years in prison
Anselomo Aviles - convicted rape, exonerated after 8 years in prison
David Ayers - convicted rape, false accusation, exonerated after 11 years in prison
Randall Ayers - convicted rape, exonerated after 8 years in prison

 

[Bruised_Reed]

So victims should come forward only if their’s is an air tight case with irrefutable evidence, several witnesses, and video of the assault, and a taped confession? Because while these are unjust they are also anomalies; most perpetrators if sexual assault will not be convicted, will not see jail time and if they do, it will be a slap on the wrist.

Also curious about the demographics of those wrongly convicted; how many were from marginalized groups, POCs, the poor, mentally ill, or a cognitive disability. I’d bet that those are over-represented on that list.

 

[glorybe]

So victims should come forward only if their’s is an air tight case with irrefutable evidence, several witnesses, and video of the assault, and a taped confession?

You’re going a bit overboard aren’t you? It just never ceases to surprise me how much people want to support accusers with no evidence, yet feel nothing for the victims of false accusations who spend, some of them, more than 30 years of their life wasting away in prison for NOTHING, meanwhile their children are grown, their wives have divorced them and remarried, they have nothing of their life left, but nobody seems to care about them. What a shame!

 

[graciew]

yet feel nothing for the victims of false accusations who spend, some of them, more than 30 years of their life wasting away in prison for NOTHING,

We are not numb.
Only sometimes speechless when things like these happen…
How can one restore the time spent unfairly to the person and the family?
There are times when we just do not know what to say.
Situations that exceed our capacity to grasp the depth of the damage and the suffering.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Also curious about the demographics of those wrongly convicted; how many were from marginalized groups, POCs, the poor, mentally ill, or a cognitive disability. I’d bet that those are over-represented on that list.

I hope you’re not trying to say that a wrongful conviction doesn’t matter if the person is not from a “marginalized group”. It is true that persons who are more well-off may have access to better legal representation that can help keep them from being wrongly convicted, but a wrongful conviction is wrong regardless of whether the person is poor, rich, black, white, mentally challenged or top of his class at Yale. It does not suddenly become okay to falsely accuse someone just because he is not a member of a marginalized group. He is still going to suffer reputational damage and the hassles of having to get legal representation, perhaps go through a legal or public process, etc even if ultimately not convicted or even charged.

 

[PetraG]

The problem of honest mistakes in eyewitness testimony is a real one. It has put people in jail–more often than not on the testimony of multiple witnesses–who were later exonerated when DNA evidence became available.

Innocence Project

We work to free the innocent, prevent wrongful convictions, and create fair, compassionate, and equitable systems of justice for everyone.

innocenceproject.org

I think that when the jury is certain a crime was committed by somebody, they want somebody to pay, and they often assume that there is a high likelihood that whoever is behind the defendant’s table is the guilty party.

For instance, a lot of people thought it was insulting to Dr. Ford to say it was likely that Judge Kavanaugh was telling the truth when he said he never did anything like what she was describing: that believing this is tantamount to calling her a liar. No, it isn’t. Eyewitness testimony, even from victims, is notoriously unreliable. It isn’t because they lie. It is because people feel in their minds as if their memories are as reliable as videotapes, but they’re not. Research comparing people’s memories to actual videotapes can demonstrate how often this is true.

 

[JimG]

The cases recounted in Dorothy Rabinowitz’s book are not about marginalized defendants. A doctor, a preschool teacher, a cop, an entire family who operated a daycare. The only way in which they were marginalized was by false accusations, fake ‘experts,’ prosecutorial zealots, coercive interrogations, fabricated stories, cherry picked evidence, suppression of exculpatory evidence, and mass hysteria in the public and in the media.

Another egregious example of false convictions were the “The Norfolk Four.” Four sailors from whom false confessions were extracted for a crime they did not commit. They were so unaware of the facts of the crime that their “confessions” did not make sense and had to be continually corrected by the detectives to correspond with the facts of the crime. Why would anyone confess to a horrible crime they did not commit? They were told that if they did not confess they would receive the death penalty but if they produced a confession they would only get life in prison. Sometime later a lone individual who actually did commit the crime did confess to it and his confession matched the details of the case.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Eyewitness testimony, even from victims, is notoriously unreliable.

This is true, but no one wants to hear this.
The response you get back is generally something like
“Well, I was sexually assaulted once and I certainly know/ could identify who did it” (completely ignoring the fact that the whole circumstance might be different, and/or that your personal memory might be wrong also)

Or

“The guy obviously did it, he is a (jock/ privileged frat boy/ member of gang/ well known local weirdo/ substance abuser/ ex-convict/ member of particular racial or ethnic group/ etc) and we all know how guys like him act”

Etc.

I have a hard time understanding how people’s logic so thoroughly flies out the window when their emotions kick into gear, but one must deal with it because not only do you have to interact with such people in daily life, they also sit on juries.

 

[PJH_74]

I’ve talked to plenty.
And here’s an eye opener with just the “A’s” from the National Registry of Exonerations (355 years in prison):

Are you going to talk about the other crimes people are wrongly convicted of? The percentage of people executed or on death row that have been exonerated? Or that poor people are more likely to be jailed because of poor representation. Or that black men are 700% and Hispanic men are 300% more likely to be imprisoned than white men, there is no way those numbers are natural. If you are really concerned about wrongful convictions you have to eat all the cherries on the tree, not just the ones you pick.

 

[glorybe]

Are you going to talk about the other crimes people are wrongly convicted of? The percentage of people executed or on death row that have been exonerated? Or that poor people are more likely to be jailed because of poor representation. Or that black men are 700% and Hispanic men are 300% more likely to be imprisoned than white men, there is no way those numbers are natural. If you are really concerned about wrongful convictions you have to eat all the cherries on the tree, not just the ones you pick.

No, I didn’t intend on doing a research project and writing a book, simply responding to the original post which was about sex abuse that never happened. I did find it curious why this didn’t sit well with you to see the facts of false rape accusations, and how they’ve destroyed the lives of so many men. And don’t forget, I only wrote about the men with the last names starting with “A”… 355 years of life stolen from them and their families. Btw, when you comment on an issue, do you also talk about everything else that can possibly relate to it, is that your standard?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Did I miss something or did glorybe only pick out rich white men when listing all the “A’s”?

I think those A’s probably include lots of the people you mentioned .

As I said to the other person, I hope you’re not somehow suggesting that if the man is rich, white and privileged then the accusations against him are probably true. That’s just weird if you are.

 

[PJH_74]

As I said to the other person, I hope you’re not somehow suggesting that if the man is rich, white and privileged then the accusations against him are probably true. That’s just weird if you are.

No I’m not, any background is affected

Btw, when you comment on an issue, do you also talk about everything else that can possibly relate to it, is that your standard?

Maybe I’m annoyed that the discussion dominating the headlines is a singular one regarding wrongful incarceration on a specific type of offense. There is a whole world out there of wrongful convictions and substantial inequity for many other reasons that people are all too willing to look away from. We get into this discussion when a white and powerful male is accused outside of court for sexual abuse. This was not a trial and so there is no way he could be convicted. I’m not trying to get into a political discussion, but these are just the objective facts of the situation. I just wish people would open their eyes to more than just their interests and fears.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Maybe I’m annoyed that the discussion dominating the headlines is a singular one regarding wrongful incarceration on a specific type of offense. There is a whole world out there of wrongful convictions and substantial inequity for many other reasons that people are all too willing to look away from.

There’s a couple reasons why sexual abuse tends to dominate the “wrongful conviction” discussion.

First of all, in the days before DNA, it was heavily dependent on the eyewitness account of the victim, as well as on the appearance. age, race etc. of the victim vs the appearance, age, race of the perp. This resulted in the criminal process being biased for the victim in some cases (which could result in a wrongful conviction) and against the victim in other cases (which could result in a guilty man getting away with it). Other crimes, like murder for instance, generally required more physical evidence.

Second, in the days since DNA, it is a crime that organizations like the Innocence Project may actually be able to examine. Innocence Project has always been heavily focused on DNA. For sexual abuse crimes, the presence of DNA evidence is more likely than if somebody was wrongly convicted of robbing the grocery store and shooting someone. Hence, a lot of the exonerations have to do with sexual abuse. I used to work for the Innocence Project and saw this first hand - they get lots of requests for different types of crimes, but many of the non-sexual ones get kicked out during initial screening because there is no additional evidence to examine or test.

 

[glorybe]

Maybe I’m annoyed that the discussion dominating the headlines is a singular one regarding wrongful incarceration on a specific type of offense.

Because that IS the topic of this original post, maybe I’m annoyed that you don’t seem to want me to have a say about it. If you want to do a research project on all the other issues you brought up, then go for it.

 

[PJH_74]

I used to work for the Innocence Project and saw this first hand - they get lots of requests for different types of crimes, but many of the non-sexual ones get kicked out during initial screening because there is no additional evidence to examine or test.

I find the work of the Innocence Project commendable and I commend you for working there. For rape DNA is a problem in that either the woman (or possible a man) does not report it for reasons extensively discussed on the forum. In the case of women specifically the “Rape kit” must be administered fairly quickly and is a very invasive procedure for someone who has so recently been violated there. Then there’s the mere fact that many of these kits never get processed. So to flip it around for a moment, the lack of DNA evidence can lead to a verdict of not guilty also. It’s a two edged sword from my perspective.

 

[PJH_74]

Because that IS the topic of this original post, maybe I’m annoyed that you don’t seem to want me to have a say about it. If you want to do a research project on all the other issues you brought up, then go for it.

I’m not preventing you from having your opinion as much as you are welcome to have yours about mine. It is not, in my opinion, off topic to express my concern that this sort of thread focuses only on one small part of a massively larger issue. I’m trying to avoid some particular examples because I have no desire to start a flame war. My hope would be that the people who are suddenly worried about being exposed to wrongful sexual allegations are able to understand better where other groups and communities are often more exposed to more serious issues of the application of justice. But sadly most people are interested in how other people hurt them rather than how their perception of the world, often misinformed. directly impacts others and this is usually directly proportional to power.