Well said.
Nine years on death row is only worth 500 000 (1998) dollars :eek: plus three more years of prison when the people involved knew damn well that they didn’t do it!
I guess we disagree on this issue. I don’t see this as the analogous to an car accident or house burning or some other accident - in those cases there was something done wrong even though there was no intenet to cause harm. I see this more analogous to a patient dying during a surgical operation (through no fault of the operating team) - the staff intentionally followed a course of action that resulted in somebody dying but nobody would claim that they murdered the patient. But if you were to argue that any death on a operating table is the “fault” of the operating team - even when they do nothing wrong and follow the best possible medical procedures - then morally speaking nobody should ever perform surgery.
I don’t hold with that argument. I feel that as long as people are following the correct procedures to the best of their abilities and knowledge and with no ill intent, then they are blameless even if their actions cause an unforeseeable misfortune. That holds true for medical teams, the court system, and others in similar situations.
As a data point, David Milgaard was compensated $10 million after 22 years in jail.
But in this case, something was done wrong, even though there was no intent to cause harm.
It is precisely analagous. An innocent man was sent to prison; it’s a mistake, an accident, just like an inadvertent car wreck.
But this is, by comparison, a terrible analogy. A surgeon is attempting to assist the patient; one presumes that in most cases, absent the surgery, the patient would have died or been unhealthy in some way. The intervention of the surgeon was necessary, and was intended, to assist the patient; in some cases they succeed and in some they do not. The patient (or their proxy) knowingly agrees to accept the risk in exchange for an health benefit of some kind. It’s a voluntary arrangement.
In the case of Mr. Capozzi, the State of New York was not trying to help him. they were TRYING to hurt him, actually. It was in no way a voluntary arrangement; Mr. Capozzi presumably did not want to be arrested and tried. Sure, it was an honest mistake, but that’s what they tried to do, and succeeded in doing. The entire point of the criminal justice system is to punish people, after all, and to use force to impose things upon them they do not want. Their intervention was of no conceivable benefit to him; rather, they essentially misaimed the hammer of justice and pounded on the wrong guy.
A better analogy would be if the police intend to raid 98 Spooner Street and accidentally raid 96 Spooner Street, my house, and wreck my door and parts of my home. Afterwards they realize their error. Should they not pay for repairs to my home, or do you think I should be on the hook for that just because it was an honest mistake? Of course not. The police department screwed up and so I should be reimbursed for their error.
No, nobody was trying to help or hurt Anthony Capozzi. The legal system was trying to uphold the law and decide whether or not a person was guilty of a crime. There was no vested interest in the outcome - the court had no bias toward finding Capozzi innocent or guilty. The state was trying to uphold the law and to the best of everyone’s knowledge at the time they did so.
In a car accident, nobody’s trying to hit another car. In a accidental fire, nobody’s trying to burn down a house. In a bungled police raid, nobody’s trying to search the wrong house. In all of these circumstances, the participants acknowledge that at the time of the incident that something that shouldn’t have occurred happened. But this was not the case in Capozzi’s conviction - nobody at the time was arguing that Capozzi was wrongfully convicted (except Capozzi himself and he couldn’t offer any evidence at the time to support his innocence).
Capozzi was convicted in 1987 not 2007. If Capozzi’s conviction was wrong in 1987, then can you describe any situation when any conviction is right? And if his conviction wasn’t wrong at the time it occurred, then why should the state now assume the burden of being at fault when it did nothing wrong?
Yeah, but those are at the end of your life anyway and those years tend to suck
A man that had been wrongly put on life sentence gave a speech at my college a couple of years back. I don’t remember the details very well but he had been in prison for over a decade for the rape and murder of a young girl he didn’t commit. He was imprisoned in his early 20s, when he was more or less a drug addict. When DNA testing started happening in the 80s, he begged his lawyer to try to reopen his case and after around 5 years of rejection and bureaucracy, they finally found that he was innocent. He seemed bitter and jaded, which is more than understandable.
If I had been in a similar situation I would campaign to have the government give me some reparations and whatever the result, I’d probably live the rest of my life in misery with all the 'what if’s. The only thing that could make up for all that lost time is some sort of cosmic, supernatural good luck which would bring me peace of mind. I hope those wrongly imprisoned get compensated in some way, whether through govt money, good karma or something.
Well if he doesn’t get compensated, does he get a freebie murder? Doesn’t this count as time served?
That is flatly, undeniably false. The State of New York deliberately, intentionally set out to imprison Anthony Capozzi. There is no sane way to deny that happened. You don’t think that constitutes injury?
No, that’s not true. The justice system was trying to determine if Capozzi was guilty or not guilty. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, acting through the district attorney’s office, was trying to convince the justice system that he was guilty, and then had him put in prison. They’re two different agents, and one was unquestionably seeking to hurt Capozzi. They thought they were justified in doing so, but guess what? They made an error and caused damage to Capozzi. So he should be paid. In any other cirumstance, if you damage someone’s property or livelihood through your own error, you pay them. Why not here?
Completely irrelevant. If the police bungle a raid and damage my house instead, what matters is they damaged it on purpose. That they mistakenly thought it was another house is irrelevant; they damaged my house. Their actions caused me harm, and so they should pay. Why should I pay for their mistake?
Why is a wrongful conviction any different? If you cause someone substantial injury, you should pay them. I don’t understand what the problem is here.
What you’re saying is obviously false. If the police mistakenly raid my house, then that’s precisely equivalent to a wrongful conviction. Using your very words, nobody at the time was arguing that they raided the wrong house. Only afterwards would they realize their error and acknowledge that they made a mistake. And then they should pay me for the damage. Of course there’s always going to be a passage of time between the commission of such an error and realization the error was made. Why should that absolve someone of paying appropriate damages?
It’s precisely the same in the Capozzi case. The damage is just greater.
Sure; when it’s not proven wrongful. When a conviction is proven wrongful, the state should pay. Until it is, they shouldn’t. It’s very straightforward.
I’m sorry, but in this case they did so something wrong. They erroneously imprisoned a man.
You have a stunningly wrong idea of how the court system works. Do you believe the judge was trying to send Capozzi to prison? Do you think the public defender was?
The reality is that our legal system is based on an adversarial system - some people are trying to convict the defendant, some people are trying to defend him, and others are just trying to make it a fair fight. The system on the whole is designed to be neutral. (Actually the system is designed to favor the defendant but that’s not relevant here.)
So just because the District Attorney is one representative of the state and he was prosecuting Capozzi doesn’t mean that the state as a whole was trying to convict Capozzi.
And once again, I’ll ask you: what error did the court make in 1987 by not examining evidence that didn’t exist in 1987?
No, there is a huge difference. The police who were knocking down the door may have been ignorant of their mistake when they were making it but the knowledge was there. Anyone at the time could examine the facts that were known at that time and see that a mistake was made.
Capozzi’s conviction was different. The information that would have theoretically exonerated him didn’t exist in 1987. Nobody could possibly have known it and the most thorough investigation possible wouldn’t have revealed it. There’s no error in not examining evidence that doesn’t exist.
Just because somthing bad happened doesn’t mean somebody is at fault.
A solid, tax free $5,000,000.00 and apologies from everyone in person.
No, at least not at frst. The District Attorney was. That’s why I specifically mentioned the District Attorney.
But the state, through the agency of the DA, was trying to do exactly that. And then when he was convicted, the state did in fact physically force Capozzi to spend 20 years in prison. If the state wasn’t trying to incarcerate Capozzi, would you please explain to me how he ended up in prison? Surely you’re not saying he wanted to be there. Someone put him there. Tell me who it was, if not the state. Elves, perhaps?
The court did not err in examining evidence, they erred in putting Capozzi in prison. It was a mistake, irrespective or whether or not it was an honest mistake. Capozzi was injured; the party that did the injuring should pay him. That party is the State of New York.
No error - but that’s not the point. “Wrongful” in this case, does not mean that someone in the justice system DID anything wrong. Just that the justice system GOT it wrong. And because of that failure, an innocent man was deprived of his liberty.
That’s the thing - everybody did their job, based on the information that they had at the time. Regardless, they got the ultimate decision - i.e., whether or not Capozzi was actually guilty - flat wrong.
I apologize for trying to sum this up, but I think it all turns on one word: “wrongful.” Little Nemo, it seems to me, is focusing on the conduct of the justice system. They took the evidence they had, and they made the “right” decision under the circumstances. Hence, the decision was not wrongful, and Capozzi should not be compensated, despite the fact he was innocent. (ETA: I apologize if that misstates your arguments, Nemo. Please feel free to clarify if necessary).
Rickjay and I are focusing on the harm to Capozzi. It is basically irrelevant whether the original trial was conducted fairly, or whether the jury made the best decision based on the facts available. The ultimate decision was “wrong” in that it found an innocent man guilty. That decision deprived Capozzi of his liberty and thus, “wronged” him. In both senses, the decision was wrongful.
I don’t want to muddle this discussion up too much with tangential legal theories - but it seems to me this is very much like strict liability. It is irrelevant what procedures, what safeguards, and what actions the State took to protect Capozzi. It is irrelevant whether the justice system did the best it could, given the information it had at the time. The only thing relevant is that, because of the State’s actions (putting Capozzi on trial), Capozzi was harmed (deprived of his liberty). Thus, the State is responsible, and, in my opinion, should compensate Capozzi.
RickJay, you said “The State of New York deliberately, intentionally set out to imprison Anthony Capozzi.” That’s wrong. The District Attorney and the State of New York are not the same entity. The DA is a part of the State but only a part. The state as a whole was neutral about Capozzi’s guilt or innocence.
No, that’s pretty much the way I see it. I feel that Capozzi suffered a great misfortune but I don’t feel any entity was to blame for that misfortune.
Like I said, somebody that gets struck by lightning may suffer a great misfortune. But that doesn’t mean somebody was at fault - they were just a victim of bad luck. Maybe they should receive some financial assistance to help them recover from their misfortune but I don’t see anyone who owes them money in the sense that they caused his misfortune.
And as I said, this is my opinion and I realize others have different views.
I’d ask for a modest lump-sum; enough to buy a car and a condo. And then an annuity to replace the Pension/401K I don’t have. Here in CA, a megabuck would cover it.
Does the fact that DA’s offices care a lot about conviction rates count as a bias in your opinion? I mean, the prosecution usually wants to convict, by the time they indict and go to trial, and the question of actual innocence or guilt becomes irrelevant. Check out Craig Watkins, DA of Dallas County, who has decided to cooperate with the Innocence Project to exhonerate as many convicted people as possible using DNA evidence. This has been called “an unprecedented level of cooperation and unprecedented sensitivity to the possibility that mistakes have been made…” The implication here is that most DA’s are not interested in exhonerating people or admitting when they make mistakes. This is how innocent people get convicted, sentenced to long terms in prison, and even executed, when they are innocent.
In a perfect world, yes, everyone is neutral and just wants the right person to be convicted. In the real world, the process is biased in many ways both subtle and obvious, and it’s all attributable to human error. Even if the only bias at work is the DA’s desire to have a high conviction rate, doesn’t that count?
How can you compare an accident of nature like being struck by lightning to a process, involving human beings making decisions that can ruin people’s lives? I don’t think it’s a meaningful comparison. I don’t know for sure, and neither do you, if someone along the line ignored evidence, or suppressed it, which led to this wrongful conviction, in some way that is now lost to us and cannot be proven. Clearly, however, human error was the problem here, since the truth did exist to be discovered, but wasn’t. Thus, a man lost 20 years of his life. Nothing at all like a lightning strike.
Actually, this should be pretty easy to deal with from a lost wages standpoint. It would be based on the person’s value. That’s a calculable figure.
Ultimately I think people want to see a wrong “righted” so some amount is in order regardless. It would be nice to see a figure that start’s at $10K per year.