16 ms·

I spent 22 years in prison for a crime I didn’t commit

506 points by rahuldottech 7y ago

francescopnpn 7y ago
Another nightmare that could even come close, I can not imagine.
jacquesm 7y ago
Cutting and pasting this comment from the thread: As someone once falsely accused of a crime and facing 12 years in prison. I went to trial and I have some advice for people. 1. You gotta start acting and thinking like you're guilty. Ask yourself "if I was guilty and trying to get away with this, what would I do?" When you're innocent you think that your innocence means something. It doesn't. Discount it and move on. 2. Get the best lawyer you can not afford. Borrow from anyone and everyone. I borrowed 120k for my trial. Had to work my ass off to pay people back but it was worth every cent. EDIT: Another mindset to use is to remember it's NOT a justice system. It's a legal system, so get the best damn team you can. Because you're in a legal game not a justice game. Know what game you're playing before you step on the floor. 3. Never ever ever ever talk to the cops. Retain your right for silence. It's the greatest gift you have. The cops don't want to sort anything out, they aren't on your side. They want to nail you. That's all they care about. They have a job to do. That job is to find someone to blame for this problem. So they're gonna do that. Don't help them do that. Save your ammunition for trial. My jury ended up laughing at the prosecutor and the investigating officer in the trial. I was acquitted of 13 charges in under 70 minutes by my jury. If I had of used a public defender I would be in prison still. With another 6 years to go. Hopefully this advice helps someone else. Hit me up if you're in trouble with the law and just want an ear to listen. PS. If you're guilty, I got nothing for you, no idea how to help you. EDIT: Another mindset to use is to remember it's NOT a justice system. It's a legal system, so get the best damn team you can. Because you're in a legal game not a justice game. Know what game you're playing before you step on the floor. from: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/e63xwa/i_spent_22_years_in_prison_for_a_crime_i_didnt/f9oranm/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/e63xwa/i_spent_22_yea...
- joe5150 7y ago
  how many people can realistically pull $120,000 from friend and family _and_ expect to pay it all back?
  - fwn 7y ago
    > how many people can realistically pull $120,000 from friend and family _and_ expect to pay it all back? Taking everything said at face value, you pay 120k for 6 years in the job market. That's 20k a year, without interest. edit: please don't read this as an "oh, only 20k a year" comment. My intention was just to make the number approachable by connecting it to the given return. In the same way one would explain unreasonably high college expenses.
    - cameronbrown 7y ago
      That's more than half of some (most?) peoples' salary.
    - metaphor 7y ago
      On top of all other typical expenses and obligations, that's effectively a respectable mortgage that most households in the US[1] likely wouldn't be able to afford. It's a pretty ridiculous financial burden to shoulder for anyone who isn't in roughly the top 10th-percentile income bracket. [1] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-263.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-26...
    - lm28469 7y ago
      Keep in mind that in the us the median income per capita is less than 32k. It's hard to save 20k a years on that kind of revenues.
    - jandrese 7y ago
      Try getting a high paying job with a criminal record. Even if you were acquitted. And going to trial with an expensive lawyer is not guarantee of success. You may have an actual criminal record and years in jail before you can begin to pay that back.
Knufen 7y ago
I can't fathom Missouri getting away with imprisoning someone for 22 years and not paying him any compensation. An entire life down the drain due to incompetence.
- Ligrev 7y ago
  A while ago I was thinking the same about compensation but then someone pointed out that if you were eligible for one, they would have incentive to not let you go. It would be cheaper for everyone to just keep you unfairly.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    That doesn’t pass the smell test. It’s not like judges/juries pay out of their own pockets.
    - rndgermandude 7y ago
      They might not pay it out of the pocket, but they may pay with their jobs one way or another: Elected judges and prosecutors may lose elections when the electorate hears they shell out huge compensations, especially to people the electorate is not really convinced are innocent (because unlike the judges, who were at the trial obviously, the electorate learned only a tiny fraction of information about a case from more or less reliable media sources at best, and outright rumors and gossip at worst). Appointed judges are still appointed by somebody, and that somebody is a (group of) politician(s). These politicians have the same issues as the elected judges and prosecutors, and may avoid this (or even retaliate) by not appointing judges (to higher circuits) that are perceived to be risky in this regard, effectively killing the careers of these judges. So if you want to become an appointed judge, you still better pay close attention to the political scene and play ball.
  - nullc 7y ago
    This wouldn't be true if the payout were less than the ongoing cost of incarceration.
janvdberg 7y ago
He was able to read over 1000 books and notes it as one of the positives. That is way more than most people will read in their lifetime. https://piks.nl/upload/upload/chrome_2019-12-05_09-17-19.png https://piks.nl/upload/upload/chrome_2019-12-05_09-17-19.png This popped out for me because, having time to read, is always the first thing that comes to my mind about being imprisoned.
- polytely 7y ago
  I think that is changing though: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/incarcerated-pennsylvanians-now-have-to-pay-150-to-read-we-should-all-be-outraged/2018/10/11/51f548b8-cbd9-11e8-a85c-0bbe30c19e8f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/incarcerated-pennsyl... I cannot fathom working on a product like this, to extract as much as possible from people who already have almost nothing. It makes my blood boil.
  - nickthemagicman 7y ago
    Thats an absolutely terrible and ignorant and draconian policy.
  - youdontknowtho 7y ago
    Pennsylvania is so backwards.
- keiferski 7y ago
  Malcolm Little essentially reinvented himself as Malcolm X while in prison, largely through reading hundreds of books. I suppose it was inevitable that as my word-base broadened, I could for the first time pick up a book and read and now begin to understand what the book was saying. Anyone who has read a great deal can imagine the new world that opened. Let me tell you something: from then until I left that prison, in every free moment I had, if I was not reading in the library, I was reading on my bunk. You couldn’t have gotten me out of books with a wedge. Between Mr. Muhammad’s teachings, my correspondence, my visitors—usually Ella and Reginald—and my reading of books, months passed without my even thinking about being imprisoned. In fact, up to then, I never had been so truly free in my life. http://accounts.smccd.edu/bellr/readerlearningtoread.htm http://accounts.smccd.edu/bellr/readerlearningtoread.htm
billfruit 7y ago
Won't civil law measures against wrongful imprisonment come into play here? The state should be paying heftily for putting people into imprisonment wrongfully.
- yaur 7y ago
  How would you structure a compensation scheme that fairly compensates someone who was wrongly imprisoned before "iPhone" was a thing until now? Assume that his imprisonment has deprived him of the ability to learn critical financial management skills and that society hates unearned entitlements.
  - lazylizard 7y ago
    At any rate its not 0?
  - billfruit 7y ago
    Beyond compensating the affected individuals, it will incentivize the state from pursuing false convictions by shoddy/hasty case and trial work.
  - nkrisc 7y ago
    > society hates unearned entitlements. I'd say he spent 22 years earning it.
laughablePenis 7y ago
Sometimes I think this happens because they wanted the individual serving the time to disappear off the streets. Other times I think it's the government covering up a crime perpetrated by their own, or someone bribing them, and they know exactly who did it.
imjasonmiller 7y ago
The sad thing to me is that there are hundreds upon hundreds of such cases, with apparently a racial component to it as well [1]. As the author and jacquesm in this thread touched on [2]: > I don't think my case was directly race related. I do believe that failed public defender systems across the country has a race related component. Most people who need a public defender are either black or poor or both. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/us/wrongful-convictions-race-exoneration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/us/wrongful-convictions-r... 2. https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/e63xwa/i_spent_22_years_in_prison_for_a_crime_i_didnt/f9nttqp/ https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/e63xwa/i_spent_22_yea...
- setr 7y ago
  I find it difficult to imagine a sufficiently wealthy black person would struggle to find a lawyer willing to represent him, and be forced to fall back onto public defenders. Most people who need a public defender are poor, and a large portion of the poor population is black.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
baybal2 7y ago
Americans, take a look at that. I think you have a lot to learn where Soviet, and then Russian criminal justice system went. US police and that of Soviet Union have surprisingly many things in common. The biggest similarity I think is police's and DAs' willingness to throw a charge at just anybody, some times even at a first passerby they see, and then "seeing if it sticks." And they, sometimes, show an even greater zeal at going after known "easy targets" than genuine cases.
- WalterBright 7y ago
  You always have to look at what the incentives are. For example, forensic labs are paid by the prosecution. They really need to be funded by a separate organization.
ainiriand 7y ago
Another sad situation that discourages death penalty. I can't even imagine the amount of people killed when they did nothing wrong.
- apta 7y ago
  People bring up this argument all the time as if there are no other alternatives (black or white fallacy). How about a simple rule to abide by: if there is any ounce of doubt as to whether the person committed the crime that puts the death penalty on the table, then it doesn't get upheld. They can get punished in other ways if evidence is strong enough though. The death penalty would only apply to clear-cut cases. And there have already been a bunch of those (mass shooters, etc.).
  - benchaney 7y ago
    We already have the simple rule that if there is any reasonable doubt that they committed the crime, they shouldn’t be punished. That doesn’t seem to be working at all. There are two reasons we can’t just have a higher standard for the death penalty. The first is that there isn’t a sensible standard stronger than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The second is that even if we impose a higher standard, that standard won’t be enforced correctly. Similar to how proof beyond reasonable doubt isn’t enforced correctly now.
    - apta 7y ago
      > We already have the simple rule that if there is any reasonable doubt that they committed the crime, they shouldn’t be punished. This is different from what I wrote. When there's a serious punishment like the death penalty, then any ounce of doubt should waive it. Other lesser punishments can still hold if evidence is strong enough.
      - benchaney 7y ago
        I addressed this in the second half of my comment. There isn’t a sensible standard stricter than proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the current standard isn’t enforced properly so I don’t see why adding another one will magically fix the issue.
adim86 7y ago
Something I think about is why is the American Justice system designed the way it is. Like a commenter said below it is a legal game. Why? These are peoples lives, why is this system gamified? Why is it not a truth-seeking system? I am probably naive and don't see the full picture of all of this but it is confusing to me. The United States is known to be the country with the highest number of its citizens in prison. With a burdened legal system and little funding, why does this continue to be so? I find the barrier of entry to prison in the US very low compared to other countries I have lived in and visited. What are the advantages of this? I find this all very absurd.
- baybal2 7y ago
  > I find this all very absurd. I do too, and many citizens of the Soviet Union thought of that the same with "guilty no matter what" mentality dominating Union's legal system. Unlike in USSR, American judges don't join their past clients in the gulag if they disagree with prosecutors. Why do they do it then?
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Being 'tough on crime' is a surefire way to get re-elected.
    - rahidz 7y ago
      Which raises a follow-up question: Why on Earth do Americans elect judges and prosecutors?
      - rndgermandude 7y ago
        Exactly. And they also elect sheriffs.
      - wil421 7y ago
        Not all judges are elected, some are appointed. Same with prosecutors, it’s usually only the top one that’s elected. It gives you an opportunity to select the type of community you want to live in. Some elections are partisan and some non-partisan. If you’re in an liberal county you have the option to select a liberal candidate and vice versa. I doubt a very liberal or conservative community would want to be stuck with someone with opposing views.
air7 7y ago
How much of this nightmare happens in other 1st world countries? Does the adage "Never talk to the police" hold elsewhere/everywhere?
- jacquesm 7y ago
  For the first, not so much, for the second, usually this is good advice but it depends on where you are how strict you'd have to apply it. America is fairly unique in that its justice system is so driven by money, but good lawyers are expensive everywhere.
  - vidarh 7y ago
    Good lawyers are expensive, but e.g in Norway for example there are no dedicated public defenders - the state pays private criminal defense lawyers. Not everyone will sign up to it, but most high profile defence lawyers have, as the rates are generous enough. I refused military service (Norway has compulsory conscription for men) , and when the DOJ sued to get a declarative judgement that I was not entitled to do so, I got one of the best lawyers in the country appointed for free. The system still has lots of issues, but that part for the most part works very well in avoiding the issue of the prosecutors being able to bully people into submission. The lack of plea bargaining also helps, but that is contingent of first having good enough provisions for public defence.
- pnako 7y ago
  I remember a famous case in France where a guy spent 15 years before being released. He would have been sentenced to death a few years before, when death penalty was still in place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Dils https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Dils There was another case, more recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outreau_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outreau_trial I suspect it happens in all countries (some more than others, probably). No human institution is perfect.
- lm28469 7y ago
  Depends if you consider the US to be a first world country or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wrongful_convictions_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wrongful_convictions_i... When you read about the history of the prison / legal system in the US it makes sense though.
jessaustin 7y ago
We are over-taxing the justice system; we need to decriminalize a lot [of] behavior that would be better managed by the health care system. A majority of people in prison are mentally ill. Many are there for drug convictions or behavior in service of an addiction. So reducing the number of people brought into the system would be a strong start. Stop voting for tough-on-crime politicians, and start getting smart on crime. -- Sean O’Brien
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  Everyone has their pet issues that they want everyone on the wrong side of put to death (or otherwise punished harshly) for. These people won't vote for officials who don't do that so in order to be most electable politicians/DAs/judges/sheriffs have to be tough on all the crimes and we get the status quo. It's basically a tragedy of the commons that makes reducing input of alleged criminals to the legal system politically impossible.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    I'm certainly not one of the "everyone" you describe. Let's be better than that.
- zeveb 7y ago
  I agree with his point, but I think that it's also important to note that there was a reason why 'tough on crime' was electoral gold for so long: the U.S. really did have a problem with violent crime (still does, in comparison to other countries, but it's a lot better now than it was). There are a whole lot of reasons for that. Our history of racial injustice absolutely destroyed so many black communities, to a degree I hadn't appreciated before I considered it. Closing the asylums (which really were awful, but also really were needed) was another problem. The widespread attitude that the justice system is to punish the guilty rather than reform people who have done bad things is another. I suspect that the fact that Americans descend from folks who were so unusual that they fled across continents and oceans to get away from their communities can't possibly help. But for all that, prior to the tough-on-crime movement we really did have a problem with real crime — by 'real' I mean crime with actual victims. Things are much better now, and we are much richer now, and so now we have the luxury of being smarter.
henvic 7y ago
If you are interested in this matter, watch The confession Tapes in Netflix, and learn why you should never talk to cops (nor brag about crimes [you haven't committed - and even if you have, you don't want to start talking without a good lawyer helping you out first because a deal might be on the table, etc.). https://www.netflix.com/title/80161702 https://www.netflix.com/title/80161702 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Confession_Tapes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Confession_Tapes
nickthemagicman 7y ago
These letters from his public defender seem horrible. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/read-ricky-kidds-desperate-letters-begging-his-public-defender-to-do-more https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/read-ricky-kidds-despera...
- jaclaz 7y ago
  Thank you for the link. What I find really appalling, besides the letters by the lawyer is that the attempt to have her changed was submittd to court on a pre-printed form, which means logically that it is very commmon to have "free" defenders doing nothing. The way the form is laid down, the five pre-printed "statements of facts" are an exact list of infringements to all the duties that a public defender should have and represent IMHO serious accusations that in other countries would likely trigger at the very least an "ethics" investigation on the lawyer. Besides any reason, true or false, given for requesting the change of one's defense, having it granted should be a basic right.
psaux 7y ago
This is one of the best threads and feedback I have read on HN. The biggest fear among males is prison. Not having proper protection and legal advise changes lives, and it federates deep.
tzfld 7y ago
The fact that the legal system can work correctly only if you throw enough money into it, that's scary. Is it a good thing that only wealthy persons can afford a correct legal treatment? Not seems to be in a free and open society the US claims to have.
- sysbin 7y ago
  The US never claimed to be a free & open society. It’s just interpreted that way by people that don’t have any significant wealth. Everyone is created equal when it comes to the significance of the almighty capital.
jajag 7y ago
From the start of the AMA: "the public defender ... didn’t have time or the resources to prove my innocence". The defence isn't supposed to have to prove anything, that's the job of the prosecution - but what surprises me even more is that no-one seems to have picked up on that point. Suggestion for US readers - it's not a justice system if it imprisons innocence people at an overly high rate.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  This is a naive view, and doesn’t reflect anything unique about the US justice system at all. Innocent until proven guilty is a nice ideal to aspire too, but at the end of the day, you’re dealing with the opinions of a dozen random jurors. The fact that somebody chose to charge the accused with a crime is enough to prejudice them off the bat. Defence will always carry at least some burden of proof.
  - cr0sh 7y ago
    Not just "a dozen random jurors", but rather "a dozen random jurors who individually usually don't want to be there and just want to go back home to eat and live their lives - and by the way, when is lunch?" I've never been on a jury (and likely never will be - closest I got was "voir dire", and when I was questioned I inadvertently brought up the concept of a fully informed jury - and they dismissed all of us virtually then-and-there - that was over a decade ago and I have yet to be called for jury duty again), but from what I have read about other people who have, your fellow jurors, regardless of their intellect or life experience, really don't give a damn about seeking justice or truth, but rather the most expedient way to leave the whole thing behind and get back home. Then - you get someone like me (who gets past voir dire of course) - who does want to get as close to the truth as possible by examining and questioning and discussing everything, and if there is any doubt - will not vote unanimously with everyone else (who just want to go home) - after being sent back to the juror's room a couple of times...well, most people would likely fold - because the other jurors gang up on them, scream, threaten to fight, argue, make other threats, etc - rather than actually do the job they were entrusted with - especially in a case where a person's life is at stake. They are all quite selfish, and don't really care about the defendant, and almost actively hate a fellow juror who does care about the process, about what is at stake, and about coming to the most just conclusion (especially if that conclusion is "the law is wrong"). Jurors tend to forget that the jury is one of their most important Constitutional rights and duty as citizens in the United States; as the saying goes, “A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.” Let's hope we never again need to use the last one, which is why the jury box is so important.
DyslexicAtheist 7y ago
try wrapping your head around the idea of a 43% unemployment rate. That’s the unemployment rate among formerly incarcerated Black women: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/outofwork.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/outofwork.html Instead Prisons: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/instead_of_prisons/chapter1.shtml https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/instead_of_prisons/chapte... > There ought to be no jails; and if it were not for the fact that the people on the outside are so grasping and heartless in their dealings with the people on the inside, there would be no such institutions as jails .... The only way in the world to abolish crime and criminals is to abolish the big ones and the little ones together. Make fair conditions of life. Give men a chance to live .... Nobody would steal if he could get something of his own some easier way. Nobody will commit burglary when he has a house full. The only way to cure these conditions is by equality. There should be no jails. They do not accomplish what they pretend to accomplish. If you would wipe them out there would be no more criminals than now. They terrorize nobody. They are a blot upon any civilization, and a jail is an evidence of the lack of charity of the people on the outside who make the jails and fill them with the victims of their greed. —Clarence Darrow, An Address to the Prisoners in the Cook County Jail, Chicago, Illinois-1902
- purple_ducks 7y ago
  As feelgood a quote as that may seem, this line: > Nobody would steal if he could get something of his own some easier way. Nobody will commit burglary when he has a house full. is complete nonsense when contrasted against modern times. All the thieves in jail are not there because they stole to feed their family or some other noble deed.
  - Emphere 7y ago
    Yep. Agree with his conclusions but also think that his reasoning is nonsense
bayesian_horse 7y ago
Depressing.
walterkrankheit 7y ago
I have been living in Germany for many years and the prison (and justice) system is obviously different hear. Quite a few Americans think it's ludicrous here. But reading this, I beg to differ. This is also just heartbreaking. It's also crazy to think he gets no state compensation for this sort of thing.
- gmueckl 7y ago
  The German legal system works very differently. I can see how US citizens would be comfused about that. In Germany, the Judge asks questions and arrives at a verdict. The prosecution and the defense state their cases and bring evidence, also question the witnesses etc... but the Judge has a lot of control over the process of examination. So the nature of the court proceedings is not fundamentally adversarial as both parties have to convince a person who tends to ask hard questions about the arguments that are brought before the court. I have witnessed judges tear through bullshit arguments with ease. Judges may be guided by personal biases. That does happen. To balance that, ordinary citizens are drafted as layman judges (Schöffen) to assist in more important cases for fixed terms (not individual cases). They are present to balance out professional judges and any biases they may develop as part of the system. They are passive observers in the court room, but have an equal say in deciding the final judgement. So this may lead to panels of up to five judges presiding over a case. The resulting system is not perfect. But I got the impression from my personal experience that it is quite fair and balanced over all. It isn't a perfect system, and some egregious errors are made. Some have ruined lives unnecessarily. But on average, it still looks fairer to me than what I hear about the US system.
seibelj 7y ago
HN commenters are usually infatuated with using the government to solve all of their problems, then situations like this come up and it’s “Doh! Why this happen?!?” How about we stop giving the government infinite power, both in the legal system and in the political system?
- wycy 7y ago
  Who do you suggest solve legal problems if not the government?
  - Clubber 7y ago
    He didn't say anything about abolishing government prosecutions, he said stop giving them unlimited power. A good example I can think of is over charging a defendant. Aaron Swartz is a good tech example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz The only ray of light is Kamala Harris got killed in the presidential primary. She basically ran on throwing people in jail and the old, "tough on crime" trope. She probably would have been much more successful if Tulsi Gabbard hadn't mentioned her prosecutorial record. Many prosecutors have political ambitions and prosecute accordingly.
umbs 7y ago
From reddit, link to book written by Ricky Kidd: > https://smile.amazon.com/Vivid-Expressions-Journey-Inside-Innocent/dp/1548560952 https://smile.amazon.com/Vivid-Expressions-Journey-Inside-In... He now supports himself through his book sales and speaking tours. That's one way to support him. If you want to support Midwest Innocence Projecj: https://themip.org/donate/ https://themip.org/donate/
youdontknowtho 7y ago
This is just a personal opinion, but I don't think that anyone should be sentenced to a term in prison longer than 20 years. I should also say that I was/am the victim of a crime that, while I wouldn't feel comfortable talking about it here, would normally get someone the death penalty. The primary reason that I don't support the death penalty is that I don't think that the state can be trusted to kill people humanely. It took me years to come around to this, but I also believe that it isn't punishment. It's revenge. The reason that I don't support terms longer than 20 years is that, no matter how uncomfortable it is to think about it, its abuse is more horrifying than the crime. Our prison system is barbaric. Google "California prison gladiator" and tell me that Abu Ghraib was a bunch of bad apples. Prisons produce that kind of abuse systematically. No matter how bad a crime committed by a single individual is, an institution that that produces the outcomes like those that out prison system creates is worse. Where I'm from, the prison system has a legacy that is intrinsically tied up to the slavery of the pre-civil war era. Some southern states even have prisons on the grounds of former slave plantations. In fact one of the things that most american's don't know is that slavery is not prohibited by the constitution. The amendment that banned slavery left a clause in place for prison inmates. This is particularly grotesque because they are still counted for the purposes of determining representation in congress based on population. Also, prison guard unions aren't prohibited from lobbying state or federal government to pass longer sentences. Never mind for-profit prisons, even prisons run by government aren't free from commercial pressures to keep prisons full. I'm intimately aware of how horrible crime can be, but prisons do not stop crime.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  "Some southern states even have prisons on the grounds of former slave plantations." To increase the horror of this- some southern states have prisons on the grounds of former slave planations, whose majority black prison population works the field of said plantations for less than a dollar an hour.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    That's not exactly just a horrific coincidence; the prison labor system was adopted as a direct continuation of slavery in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, exploiting the explicit exception for penal slavery in the 13th Amendment.
exhilaration 7y ago
He's got a gofundme if you want a send a few bucks his way: https://www.gofundme.com/f/ricky-kidd-reunited-after-23-years/donate https://www.gofundme.com/f/ricky-kidd-reunited-after-23-year... Apparently in Missouri, state law says he's owed no money for being imprisoned unless the wrongful conviction was due to DNA testing.
- jotm 7y ago
  I didn't expect much and I'm still disappointed. What a misery.
timwaagh 7y ago
'anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law'. This sentence police say condemns the us system to a game where the objective is to beat the opponent. It's ingrained in the system every step of the way, even with a person's supposed 'rights'.
schneby 7y ago
Ricky came and spoke at my firm a month ago after being out for only 72 days. He has an amazing story. He is a phenomenal speaker. I was in charge of logistics for the event and we had a book signing after he spoke. As he signed each book he put a unique and different inscription in EVERY SINGLE BOOK HE SIGNED. Literally no two were the same and he signed a ton of books. I would recommend you bring Ricky to speak wherever you may work so more people can hear his story. Support Ricky directly by buying his book or supporting his GoFundMe.
TurkishPoptart 7y ago
Thank God for PBS NewsHour. Some the best, most professional (exhibiting neutrality, just the facts) journalists we have.
TurkishPoptart 7y ago
This may be a dumb question, but if I'm in the situation where I'm being questioned by the police and need a lawyer, how do I get one (a decent one, not a public defender)? Is there a hotline or something? I've never interacted with a lawyer before.

506 points by rahuldottech 7y ago

Another nightmare that could even come close, I can not imagine.

Cutting and pasting this comment from the thread: As someone once falsely accused of a crime and facing 12 years in prison. I went to trial and I have some advice for people. 1. You gotta start acting and thinking like you're guilty. Ask yourself "if I was guilty and trying to get away with this, what would I do?" When you're innocent you think that your innocence means something. It doesn't. Discount it and move on. 2. Get the best lawyer you can not afford. Borrow from anyone and everyone. I borrowed 120k for my trial. Had to work my ass off to pay people back but it was worth every cent. EDIT: Another mindset to use is to remember it's NOT a justice system. It's a legal system, so get the best damn team you can. Because you're in a legal game not a justice game. Know what game you're playing before you step on the floor. 3. Never ever ever ever talk to the cops. Retain your right for silence. It's the greatest gift you have. The cops don't want to sort anything out, they aren't on your side. They want to nail you. That's all they care about. They have a job to do. That job is to find someone to blame for this problem. So they're gonna do that. Don't help them do that. Save your ammunition for trial. My jury ended up laughing at the prosecutor and the investigating officer in the trial. I was acquitted of 13 charges in under 70 minutes by my jury. If I had of used a public defender I would be in prison still. With another 6 years to go. Hopefully this advice helps someone else. Hit me up if you're in trouble with the law and just want an ear to listen. PS. If you're guilty, I got nothing for you, no idea how to help you. EDIT: Another mindset to use is to remember it's NOT a justice system. It's a legal system, so get the best damn team you can. Because you're in a legal game not a justice game. Know what game you're playing before you step on the floor. from: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/e63xwa/i_spent_22_years_in_prison_for_a_crime_i_didnt/f9oranm/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/e63xwa/i_spent_22_yea...

joe5150 7y ago
how many people can realistically pull $120,000 from friend and family _and_ expect to pay it all back?
- fwn 7y ago
  > how many people can realistically pull $120,000 from friend and family _and_ expect to pay it all back? Taking everything said at face value, you pay 120k for 6 years in the job market. That's 20k a year, without interest. edit: please don't read this as an "oh, only 20k a year" comment. My intention was just to make the number approachable by connecting it to the given return. In the same way one would explain unreasonably high college expenses.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    That's more than half of some (most?) peoples' salary.
  - metaphor 7y ago
    On top of all other typical expenses and obligations, that's effectively a respectable mortgage that most households in the US[1] likely wouldn't be able to afford. It's a pretty ridiculous financial burden to shoulder for anyone who isn't in roughly the top 10th-percentile income bracket. [1] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-263.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-26...
  - lm28469 7y ago
    Keep in mind that in the us the median income per capita is less than 32k. It's hard to save 20k a years on that kind of revenues.
  - jandrese 7y ago
    Try getting a high paying job with a criminal record. Even if you were acquitted. And going to trial with an expensive lawyer is not guarantee of success. You may have an actual criminal record and years in jail before you can begin to pay that back.

Knufen 7y ago

I can't fathom Missouri getting away with imprisoning someone for 22 years and not paying him any compensation. An entire life down the drain due to incompetence.

Ligrev 7y ago
A while ago I was thinking the same about compensation but then someone pointed out that if you were eligible for one, they would have incentive to not let you go. It would be cheaper for everyone to just keep you unfairly.
- kortilla 7y ago
  That doesn’t pass the smell test. It’s not like judges/juries pay out of their own pockets.
  - rndgermandude 7y ago
    They might not pay it out of the pocket, but they may pay with their jobs one way or another: Elected judges and prosecutors may lose elections when the electorate hears they shell out huge compensations, especially to people the electorate is not really convinced are innocent (because unlike the judges, who were at the trial obviously, the electorate learned only a tiny fraction of information about a case from more or less reliable media sources at best, and outright rumors and gossip at worst). Appointed judges are still appointed by somebody, and that somebody is a (group of) politician(s). These politicians have the same issues as the elected judges and prosecutors, and may avoid this (or even retaliate) by not appointing judges (to higher circuits) that are perceived to be risky in this regard, effectively killing the careers of these judges. So if you want to become an appointed judge, you still better pay close attention to the political scene and play ball.
- nullc 7y ago
  This wouldn't be true if the payout were less than the ongoing cost of incarceration.

janvdberg 7y ago

He was able to read over 1000 books and notes it as one of the positives. That is way more than most people will read in their lifetime. https://piks.nl/upload/upload/chrome_2019-12-05_09-17-19.png https://piks.nl/upload/upload/chrome_2019-12-05_09-17-19.png This popped out for me because, having time to read, is always the first thing that comes to my mind about being imprisoned.

polytely 7y ago
I think that is changing though: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/incarcerated-pennsylvanians-now-have-to-pay-150-to-read-we-should-all-be-outraged/2018/10/11/51f548b8-cbd9-11e8-a85c-0bbe30c19e8f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/incarcerated-pennsyl... I cannot fathom working on a product like this, to extract as much as possible from people who already have almost nothing. It makes my blood boil.
- nickthemagicman 7y ago
  Thats an absolutely terrible and ignorant and draconian policy.
- youdontknowtho 7y ago
  Pennsylvania is so backwards.
keiferski 7y ago
Malcolm Little essentially reinvented himself as Malcolm X while in prison, largely through reading hundreds of books. I suppose it was inevitable that as my word-base broadened, I could for the first time pick up a book and read and now begin to understand what the book was saying. Anyone who has read a great deal can imagine the new world that opened. Let me tell you something: from then until I left that prison, in every free moment I had, if I was not reading in the library, I was reading on my bunk. You couldn’t have gotten me out of books with a wedge. Between Mr. Muhammad’s teachings, my correspondence, my visitors—usually Ella and Reginald—and my reading of books, months passed without my even thinking about being imprisoned. In fact, up to then, I never had been so truly free in my life. http://accounts.smccd.edu/bellr/readerlearningtoread.htm http://accounts.smccd.edu/bellr/readerlearningtoread.htm

billfruit 7y ago

Won't civil law measures against wrongful imprisonment come into play here? The state should be paying heftily for putting people into imprisonment wrongfully.

yaur 7y ago
How would you structure a compensation scheme that fairly compensates someone who was wrongly imprisoned before "iPhone" was a thing until now? Assume that his imprisonment has deprived him of the ability to learn critical financial management skills and that society hates unearned entitlements.
- lazylizard 7y ago
  At any rate its not 0?
- billfruit 7y ago
  Beyond compensating the affected individuals, it will incentivize the state from pursuing false convictions by shoddy/hasty case and trial work.
- nkrisc 7y ago
  > society hates unearned entitlements. I'd say he spent 22 years earning it.

laughablePenis 7y ago

Sometimes I think this happens because they wanted the individual serving the time to disappear off the streets. Other times I think it's the government covering up a crime perpetrated by their own, or someone bribing them, and they know exactly who did it.

imjasonmiller 7y ago

The sad thing to me is that there are hundreds upon hundreds of such cases, with apparently a racial component to it as well [1]. As the author and jacquesm in this thread touched on [2]: > I don't think my case was directly race related. I do believe that failed public defender systems across the country has a race related component. Most people who need a public defender are either black or poor or both. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/us/wrongful-convictions-race-exoneration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/us/wrongful-convictions-r... 2. https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/e63xwa/i_spent_22_years_in_prison_for_a_crime_i_didnt/f9nttqp/ https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/e63xwa/i_spent_22_yea...

setr 7y ago
I find it difficult to imagine a sufficiently wealthy black person would struggle to find a lawyer willing to represent him, and be forced to fall back onto public defenders. Most people who need a public defender are poor, and a large portion of the poor population is black.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

baybal2 7y ago

Americans, take a look at that. I think you have a lot to learn where Soviet, and then Russian criminal justice system went. US police and that of Soviet Union have surprisingly many things in common. The biggest similarity I think is police's and DAs' willingness to throw a charge at just anybody, some times even at a first passerby they see, and then "seeing if it sticks." And they, sometimes, show an even greater zeal at going after known "easy targets" than genuine cases.

WalterBright 7y ago
You always have to look at what the incentives are. For example, forensic labs are paid by the prosecution. They really need to be funded by a separate organization.

ainiriand 7y ago

Another sad situation that discourages death penalty. I can't even imagine the amount of people killed when they did nothing wrong.

apta 7y ago
People bring up this argument all the time as if there are no other alternatives (black or white fallacy). How about a simple rule to abide by: if there is any ounce of doubt as to whether the person committed the crime that puts the death penalty on the table, then it doesn't get upheld. They can get punished in other ways if evidence is strong enough though. The death penalty would only apply to clear-cut cases. And there have already been a bunch of those (mass shooters, etc.).
- benchaney 7y ago
  We already have the simple rule that if there is any reasonable doubt that they committed the crime, they shouldn’t be punished. That doesn’t seem to be working at all. There are two reasons we can’t just have a higher standard for the death penalty. The first is that there isn’t a sensible standard stronger than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The second is that even if we impose a higher standard, that standard won’t be enforced correctly. Similar to how proof beyond reasonable doubt isn’t enforced correctly now.
  - apta 7y ago
    > We already have the simple rule that if there is any reasonable doubt that they committed the crime, they shouldn’t be punished. This is different from what I wrote. When there's a serious punishment like the death penalty, then any ounce of doubt should waive it. Other lesser punishments can still hold if evidence is strong enough.
    - benchaney 7y ago
      I addressed this in the second half of my comment. There isn’t a sensible standard stricter than proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the current standard isn’t enforced properly so I don’t see why adding another one will magically fix the issue.

adim86 7y ago

Something I think about is why is the American Justice system designed the way it is. Like a commenter said below it is a legal game. Why? These are peoples lives, why is this system gamified? Why is it not a truth-seeking system? I am probably naive and don't see the full picture of all of this but it is confusing to me. The United States is known to be the country with the highest number of its citizens in prison. With a burdened legal system and little funding, why does this continue to be so? I find the barrier of entry to prison in the US very low compared to other countries I have lived in and visited. What are the advantages of this? I find this all very absurd.

baybal2 7y ago
> I find this all very absurd. I do too, and many citizens of the Soviet Union thought of that the same with "guilty no matter what" mentality dominating Union's legal system. Unlike in USSR, American judges don't join their past clients in the gulag if they disagree with prosecutors. Why do they do it then?
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Being 'tough on crime' is a surefire way to get re-elected.
  - rahidz 7y ago
    Which raises a follow-up question: Why on Earth do Americans elect judges and prosecutors?
    - rndgermandude 7y ago
      Exactly. And they also elect sheriffs.
    - wil421 7y ago
      Not all judges are elected, some are appointed. Same with prosecutors, it’s usually only the top one that’s elected. It gives you an opportunity to select the type of community you want to live in. Some elections are partisan and some non-partisan. If you’re in an liberal county you have the option to select a liberal candidate and vice versa. I doubt a very liberal or conservative community would want to be stuck with someone with opposing views.

air7 7y ago

How much of this nightmare happens in other 1st world countries? Does the adage "Never talk to the police" hold elsewhere/everywhere?

jacquesm 7y ago
For the first, not so much, for the second, usually this is good advice but it depends on where you are how strict you'd have to apply it. America is fairly unique in that its justice system is so driven by money, but good lawyers are expensive everywhere.
- vidarh 7y ago
  Good lawyers are expensive, but e.g in Norway for example there are no dedicated public defenders - the state pays private criminal defense lawyers. Not everyone will sign up to it, but most high profile defence lawyers have, as the rates are generous enough. I refused military service (Norway has compulsory conscription for men) , and when the DOJ sued to get a declarative judgement that I was not entitled to do so, I got one of the best lawyers in the country appointed for free. The system still has lots of issues, but that part for the most part works very well in avoiding the issue of the prosecutors being able to bully people into submission. The lack of plea bargaining also helps, but that is contingent of first having good enough provisions for public defence.
pnako 7y ago
I remember a famous case in France where a guy spent 15 years before being released. He would have been sentenced to death a few years before, when death penalty was still in place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Dils https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Dils There was another case, more recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outreau_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outreau_trial I suspect it happens in all countries (some more than others, probably). No human institution is perfect.
lm28469 7y ago
Depends if you consider the US to be a first world country or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wrongful_convictions_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wrongful_convictions_i... When you read about the history of the prison / legal system in the US it makes sense though.

jessaustin 7y ago

We are over-taxing the justice system; we need to decriminalize a lot [of] behavior that would be better managed by the health care system. A majority of people in prison are mentally ill. Many are there for drug convictions or behavior in service of an addiction. So reducing the number of people brought into the system would be a strong start. Stop voting for tough-on-crime politicians, and start getting smart on crime. -- Sean O’Brien

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
Everyone has their pet issues that they want everyone on the wrong side of put to death (or otherwise punished harshly) for. These people won't vote for officials who don't do that so in order to be most electable politicians/DAs/judges/sheriffs have to be tough on all the crimes and we get the status quo. It's basically a tragedy of the commons that makes reducing input of alleged criminals to the legal system politically impossible.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  I'm certainly not one of the "everyone" you describe. Let's be better than that.
zeveb 7y ago
I agree with his point, but I think that it's also important to note that there was a reason why 'tough on crime' was electoral gold for so long: the U.S. really did have a problem with violent crime (still does, in comparison to other countries, but it's a lot better now than it was). There are a whole lot of reasons for that. Our history of racial injustice absolutely destroyed so many black communities, to a degree I hadn't appreciated before I considered it. Closing the asylums (which really were awful, but also really were needed) was another problem. The widespread attitude that the justice system is to punish the guilty rather than reform people who have done bad things is another. I suspect that the fact that Americans descend from folks who were so unusual that they fled across continents and oceans to get away from their communities can't possibly help. But for all that, prior to the tough-on-crime movement we really did have a problem with real crime — by 'real' I mean crime with actual victims. Things are much better now, and we are much richer now, and so now we have the luxury of being smarter.

henvic 7y ago

If you are interested in this matter, watch The confession Tapes in Netflix, and learn why you should never talk to cops (nor brag about crimes [you haven't committed - and even if you have, you don't want to start talking without a good lawyer helping you out first because a deal might be on the table, etc.). https://www.netflix.com/title/80161702 https://www.netflix.com/title/80161702 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Confession_Tapes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Confession_Tapes

nickthemagicman 7y ago

These letters from his public defender seem horrible. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/read-ricky-kidds-desperate-letters-begging-his-public-defender-to-do-more https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/read-ricky-kidds-despera...

jaclaz 7y ago
Thank you for the link. What I find really appalling, besides the letters by the lawyer is that the attempt to have her changed was submittd to court on a pre-printed form, which means logically that it is very commmon to have "free" defenders doing nothing. The way the form is laid down, the five pre-printed "statements of facts" are an exact list of infringements to all the duties that a public defender should have and represent IMHO serious accusations that in other countries would likely trigger at the very least an "ethics" investigation on the lawyer. Besides any reason, true or false, given for requesting the change of one's defense, having it granted should be a basic right.

psaux 7y ago

This is one of the best threads and feedback I have read on HN. The biggest fear among males is prison. Not having proper protection and legal advise changes lives, and it federates deep.

tzfld 7y ago

The fact that the legal system can work correctly only if you throw enough money into it, that's scary. Is it a good thing that only wealthy persons can afford a correct legal treatment? Not seems to be in a free and open society the US claims to have.

sysbin 7y ago
The US never claimed to be a free & open society. It’s just interpreted that way by people that don’t have any significant wealth. Everyone is created equal when it comes to the significance of the almighty capital.

jajag 7y ago

From the start of the AMA: "the public defender ... didn’t have time or the resources to prove my innocence". The defence isn't supposed to have to prove anything, that's the job of the prosecution - but what surprises me even more is that no-one seems to have picked up on that point. Suggestion for US readers - it's not a justice system if it imprisons innocence people at an overly high rate.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
This is a naive view, and doesn’t reflect anything unique about the US justice system at all. Innocent until proven guilty is a nice ideal to aspire too, but at the end of the day, you’re dealing with the opinions of a dozen random jurors. The fact that somebody chose to charge the accused with a crime is enough to prejudice them off the bat. Defence will always carry at least some burden of proof.
- cr0sh 7y ago
  Not just "a dozen random jurors", but rather "a dozen random jurors who individually usually don't want to be there and just want to go back home to eat and live their lives - and by the way, when is lunch?" I've never been on a jury (and likely never will be - closest I got was "voir dire", and when I was questioned I inadvertently brought up the concept of a fully informed jury - and they dismissed all of us virtually then-and-there - that was over a decade ago and I have yet to be called for jury duty again), but from what I have read about other people who have, your fellow jurors, regardless of their intellect or life experience, really don't give a damn about seeking justice or truth, but rather the most expedient way to leave the whole thing behind and get back home. Then - you get someone like me (who gets past voir dire of course) - who does want to get as close to the truth as possible by examining and questioning and discussing everything, and if there is any doubt - will not vote unanimously with everyone else (who just want to go home) - after being sent back to the juror's room a couple of times...well, most people would likely fold - because the other jurors gang up on them, scream, threaten to fight, argue, make other threats, etc - rather than actually do the job they were entrusted with - especially in a case where a person's life is at stake. They are all quite selfish, and don't really care about the defendant, and almost actively hate a fellow juror who does care about the process, about what is at stake, and about coming to the most just conclusion (especially if that conclusion is "the law is wrong"). Jurors tend to forget that the jury is one of their most important Constitutional rights and duty as citizens in the United States; as the saying goes, “A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.” Let's hope we never again need to use the last one, which is why the jury box is so important.

DyslexicAtheist 7y ago

try wrapping your head around the idea of a 43% unemployment rate. That’s the unemployment rate among formerly incarcerated Black women: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/outofwork.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/outofwork.html Instead Prisons: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/instead_of_prisons/chapter1.shtml https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/instead_of_prisons/chapte... > There ought to be no jails; and if it were not for the fact that the people on the outside are so grasping and heartless in their dealings with the people on the inside, there would be no such institutions as jails .... The only way in the world to abolish crime and criminals is to abolish the big ones and the little ones together. Make fair conditions of life. Give men a chance to live .... Nobody would steal if he could get something of his own some easier way. Nobody will commit burglary when he has a house full. The only way to cure these conditions is by equality. There should be no jails. They do not accomplish what they pretend to accomplish. If you would wipe them out there would be no more criminals than now. They terrorize nobody. They are a blot upon any civilization, and a jail is an evidence of the lack of charity of the people on the outside who make the jails and fill them with the victims of their greed. —Clarence Darrow, An Address to the Prisoners in the Cook County Jail, Chicago, Illinois-1902

purple_ducks 7y ago
As feelgood a quote as that may seem, this line: > Nobody would steal if he could get something of his own some easier way. Nobody will commit burglary when he has a house full. is complete nonsense when contrasted against modern times. All the thieves in jail are not there because they stole to feed their family or some other noble deed.
- Emphere 7y ago
  Yep. Agree with his conclusions but also think that his reasoning is nonsense

bayesian_horse 7y ago

Depressing.

walterkrankheit 7y ago

I have been living in Germany for many years and the prison (and justice) system is obviously different hear. Quite a few Americans think it's ludicrous here. But reading this, I beg to differ. This is also just heartbreaking. It's also crazy to think he gets no state compensation for this sort of thing.

gmueckl 7y ago
The German legal system works very differently. I can see how US citizens would be comfused about that. In Germany, the Judge asks questions and arrives at a verdict. The prosecution and the defense state their cases and bring evidence, also question the witnesses etc... but the Judge has a lot of control over the process of examination. So the nature of the court proceedings is not fundamentally adversarial as both parties have to convince a person who tends to ask hard questions about the arguments that are brought before the court. I have witnessed judges tear through bullshit arguments with ease. Judges may be guided by personal biases. That does happen. To balance that, ordinary citizens are drafted as layman judges (Schöffen) to assist in more important cases for fixed terms (not individual cases). They are present to balance out professional judges and any biases they may develop as part of the system. They are passive observers in the court room, but have an equal say in deciding the final judgement. So this may lead to panels of up to five judges presiding over a case. The resulting system is not perfect. But I got the impression from my personal experience that it is quite fair and balanced over all. It isn't a perfect system, and some egregious errors are made. Some have ruined lives unnecessarily. But on average, it still looks fairer to me than what I hear about the US system.

seibelj 7y ago

HN commenters are usually infatuated with using the government to solve all of their problems, then situations like this come up and it’s “Doh! Why this happen?!?” How about we stop giving the government infinite power, both in the legal system and in the political system?

wycy 7y ago
Who do you suggest solve legal problems if not the government?
- Clubber 7y ago
  He didn't say anything about abolishing government prosecutions, he said stop giving them unlimited power. A good example I can think of is over charging a defendant. Aaron Swartz is a good tech example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz The only ray of light is Kamala Harris got killed in the presidential primary. She basically ran on throwing people in jail and the old, "tough on crime" trope. She probably would have been much more successful if Tulsi Gabbard hadn't mentioned her prosecutorial record. Many prosecutors have political ambitions and prosecute accordingly.

umbs 7y ago

From reddit, link to book written by Ricky Kidd: > https://smile.amazon.com/Vivid-Expressions-Journey-Inside-Innocent/dp/1548560952 https://smile.amazon.com/Vivid-Expressions-Journey-Inside-In... He now supports himself through his book sales and speaking tours. That's one way to support him. If you want to support Midwest Innocence Projecj: https://themip.org/donate/ https://themip.org/donate/

youdontknowtho 7y ago

This is just a personal opinion, but I don't think that anyone should be sentenced to a term in prison longer than 20 years. I should also say that I was/am the victim of a crime that, while I wouldn't feel comfortable talking about it here, would normally get someone the death penalty. The primary reason that I don't support the death penalty is that I don't think that the state can be trusted to kill people humanely. It took me years to come around to this, but I also believe that it isn't punishment. It's revenge. The reason that I don't support terms longer than 20 years is that, no matter how uncomfortable it is to think about it, its abuse is more horrifying than the crime. Our prison system is barbaric. Google "California prison gladiator" and tell me that Abu Ghraib was a bunch of bad apples. Prisons produce that kind of abuse systematically. No matter how bad a crime committed by a single individual is, an institution that that produces the outcomes like those that out prison system creates is worse. Where I'm from, the prison system has a legacy that is intrinsically tied up to the slavery of the pre-civil war era. Some southern states even have prisons on the grounds of former slave plantations. In fact one of the things that most american's don't know is that slavery is not prohibited by the constitution. The amendment that banned slavery left a clause in place for prison inmates. This is particularly grotesque because they are still counted for the purposes of determining representation in congress based on population. Also, prison guard unions aren't prohibited from lobbying state or federal government to pass longer sentences. Never mind for-profit prisons, even prisons run by government aren't free from commercial pressures to keep prisons full. I'm intimately aware of how horrible crime can be, but prisons do not stop crime.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
"Some southern states even have prisons on the grounds of former slave plantations." To increase the horror of this- some southern states have prisons on the grounds of former slave planations, whose majority black prison population works the field of said plantations for less than a dollar an hour.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  That's not exactly just a horrific coincidence; the prison labor system was adopted as a direct continuation of slavery in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, exploiting the explicit exception for penal slavery in the 13th Amendment.

exhilaration 7y ago

He's got a gofundme if you want a send a few bucks his way: https://www.gofundme.com/f/ricky-kidd-reunited-after-23-years/donate https://www.gofundme.com/f/ricky-kidd-reunited-after-23-year... Apparently in Missouri, state law says he's owed no money for being imprisoned unless the wrongful conviction was due to DNA testing.

jotm 7y ago
I didn't expect much and I'm still disappointed. What a misery.

timwaagh 7y ago

'anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law'. This sentence police say condemns the us system to a game where the objective is to beat the opponent. It's ingrained in the system every step of the way, even with a person's supposed 'rights'.

schneby 7y ago

Ricky came and spoke at my firm a month ago after being out for only 72 days. He has an amazing story. He is a phenomenal speaker. I was in charge of logistics for the event and we had a book signing after he spoke. As he signed each book he put a unique and different inscription in EVERY SINGLE BOOK HE SIGNED. Literally no two were the same and he signed a ton of books. I would recommend you bring Ricky to speak wherever you may work so more people can hear his story. Support Ricky directly by buying his book or supporting his GoFundMe.

TurkishPoptart 7y ago

Thank God for PBS NewsHour. Some the best, most professional (exhibiting neutrality, just the facts) journalists we have.

TurkishPoptart 7y ago

This may be a dumb question, but if I'm in the situation where I'm being questioned by the police and need a lawyer, how do I get one (a decent one, not a public defender)? Is there a hotline or something? I've never interacted with a lawyer before.