3 ms·

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 think

by xrd 7y ago

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 7y ago
> 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-five https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-myth-of-the-central-park-f...
- xrd 7y ago
  Those are all fair comments. Thanks for adding them. I'll read the article you posted. I'm still unhappy that as a society we put 14 year olds in jail, but your comments clarify things about the case for me. I will add that the fact that the 15 yr old suspect lied reflects even more poorly on the police. It's really strange that they wouldn't have told him "if you are under 16 we have to have your parents here" and then he would have lied. That looks very strange to me and makes me speculate there was more there in the confessions.
- xrd 7y ago
  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-jogger-case-lacks-official-certainty.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/nyregion/new-slant-on-jog... 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 7y ago
    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.Morganthau.motion.12.5.02.doc https://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/CPJ.... 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-five https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-myth-of-the-central-park-f... > 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.)

by xrd 7y ago

rayiner 7y ago

> 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-five https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-myth-of-the-central-park-f...

xrd 7y ago
Those are all fair comments. Thanks for adding them. I'll read the article you posted. I'm still unhappy that as a society we put 14 year olds in jail, but your comments clarify things about the case for me. I will add that the fact that the 15 yr old suspect lied reflects even more poorly on the police. It's really strange that they wouldn't have told him "if you are under 16 we have to have your parents here" and then he would have lied. That looks very strange to me and makes me speculate there was more there in the confessions.
xrd 7y ago
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-jogger-case-lacks-official-certainty.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/nyregion/new-slant-on-jog... 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 7y ago
  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.Morganthau.motion.12.5.02.doc https://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/CPJ.... 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-five https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-myth-of-the-central-park-f... > 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.)