Freed prisoner wants compensation: 18 years for a crime he didn't do

St. Louis Post-Dispatch ^ | 8.1.02 | Tim Bryant

[rface]

On his first full day of freedom in 18 years, Larry Johnson said he wanted money from the state for imprisoning him for a rape that new DNA evidence shows he did not commit.

Johnson, 48, said he could not depend indefinitely on the help of relatives, who welcomed him upon his release from prison Tuesday after a judge ruled he had been wrongfully imprisoned.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Yeah, that makes all the difference when they convict him wrongly for another, unrelated crime.

He deserves it, right?

[rogercolleridge]

Yeah, that makes all the difference when they convict him wrongly for another, unrelated crime. He deserves it, right?

So one mistake should be corrected, but not the other??

[Viva Le Dissention]

Uh, no. He went to prison for a crime he committed. He was let out. He paid his debt to society, end of story.

[beowolf]

You say we should have just killed an innocent man???? Then, you complain about what his WRONG imprisonment COST the taxpayers?!?!

You are an embarrassment to FR....

[cardinal4]

In this case, I think it was a very lenient parole board. This guy shouldnt have been out in the place. Maybe, you are correct, make the parole board pay the compensation.

[NC_Libertarian]

Johnson is a former Marine who was paroled in 1982 after serving about half of a 15-year sentence in the rape, robbery and assault of the wife of a Marine staff sergeant while stationed in Japan.

Um, I was deeply sympathetic untill I read this line. Please, if the guy commited a previous rape, and robbery and assault then he should be in prison for life as far as I'm concerned.

[cardinal4]

In this case, I think it was a very lenient parole board. This guy shouldnt have been out in the place. Maybe, you are correct, make the parole board pay the compensation.

[cardinal4]

Sorry about the double post.

[beowolf]

Damn...I missed the < /sarcasm >...that was missing.

My apologies.

[rogercolleridge]

Uh, no. He went to prison for a crime he committed. He was let out. He paid his debt to society, end of story.

I don't think it's the end of the story for his victim. And I wonder how long before "society" will be repaid with a repeat performance from this creep.

[RightWhale]

So it took only two hours for the jury to decide, this time. Must have been the effect of the prior conviction for a similar crime. Of course convicting the wrong man is tragic.

[VOA]

he apparently committed a previous crime that was very terrible. That may have caused
the police to focus in on him for the 2'nd crime.

This is a story to tell the children (while they are still impressionable).
This man nay have totally turned over a new leaf after serving his time.
But the fact that he had already built a bad "record" may have contributed to his
lose of many years of life for a crime he didn't commit.

This is the thing to tell the kids: build a good reputation and then do your
best to live up to it.
It may not be a perfect defense against unjust accuasations, but it sure
beats trying to refute charges when you have a bad track record.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Ah, probably the brilliant type of thinking that got him wrongly convicted in the first place. Maybe you and the prosecutor can share tips on how to railroad innocent people.

This line of thinking that "more years is better" is the exact reason why we have such problems in our criminal justice system. Adding more years to a sentence doesn't accomplish anything, but it does allow pols to run as "tough on crime." Talk to a legislator away from the Statehouse and away from the media, and nearly all of them will say they think longer prison sentences are counter productive, but it has to be done in order to get re-elected. People are stupid when it comes to this sort of thing.

To point: In my home state of Indiana, 3 grams of coke carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years in prison. 3 grams, for my measurement challenged friends, is about two packets of Equal. Anyhow, so let's say an 18 year old gets busted with his 3 grams of coke. When he's let out of prison, he's 43. He is a convicted felon, so he can pretty much forget about getting any kind of job. More likely than not, he doesn't have any sort of education (although there are some forward thinking programs that offer college degree programs to prisoners), he doesnt' have any marketable skills (like a mechanic, say), he doesn't have any money, he doesn't have a place to live, he may or may not have some friends or family to turn to, but after 25 years in prison, it's sort of unlikely. Is there any wonder the recidivism rate is so high? The system breeds repeat offenders, and this notion that "more years is better" only increases the damage.

Until people begin to think about the consequences of the criminal justice system, it's not going to change. I hate the phrase "tough on crime." It's stupid. A better phrase is that a pol is "smart on crime." Perhaps then we can fix the problems that we have.

[babygene]

"But they had to have evidence beyond Simply the prior conviction (which, as you probably know, would not even be admissible at his trial)."

No, since he wasn't guilty, the evidence that convicted him was made up.

That is not that uncommon... Juries do not need evidence to convict. For the most part, they are stupid people.

Think about it, half of the people in this country are below average intelligence!

[rogercolleridge]

Ah, probably the brilliant type of thinking that got him wrongly convicted in the first place. Maybe you and the prosecutor can share tips on how to railroad innocent people.

Hmmmm....I wondered how long before you would resort to insults. I'm not very concerned with what you think of my level of intelligence. I AM concerned with the fact that sex offenders are usually repeat offenders. Keeping them in prison means they don't get the chance...That's all I'm saying.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Oh, so since they are usually repeat offenders (as are any criminals), that's acceptable he went to prison for a crime he didn't commit? After all, he probably would have done it again, right? Isn't that what you said?

It's because of that type of thinking that prior bad acts aren't usually admissible, because people jump to conclusions without examining the facts at hand.

Hey, if you want to live in a city or country with a lot of crime, fine. Pile on the years, build bigger, stronger prisons, do it all. It doesn't work. It's not the answer.

[NukeMan]

Makes me want to rethink the death penalty. As George Will observed, if you think of the criminal justice system as simply another government agency (with all that implies), it really causes a reevaluation of confidence....

[rogercolleridge]

Oh, so since they are usually repeat offenders (as are any criminals), that's acceptable he went to prison for a crime he didn't commit? After all, he probably would have done it again, right? Isn't that what you said?

I'm saying that there seems to be so much outrage that he was wrongly imprisoned and not much concern about the greater injustice -- which I feel is that he was released after only 7 years in the first place.

[RightWhale]

Makes me want to rethink the death penalty.

Hadn't thought about this, but what about eliminating the prison system? Either death penalty or let them go after marking them suitably. Probably too Islamic for the average citizen to contemplate.

[weikel]

He should get a lot of money and everything the woman who claimed rape owns. In addition she should be executed over several days. False accusations of sex crimes should rank up with mass murder.