Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Unjust conditions

Creating a system for compensating the wrongly imprisoned is the right

thing to do, but hinging it on prior felony convictions is criminal.

Anyone interested in trading places with Wilton Dedge? He's now a millionaire, with the state compensating him $2-million. But he finally received that money after spending 22 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit.

There are few worse fates that can befall a person than being unjustly incarcerated. People who suffer through it deserve to be reasonably compensated for the years that were stolen from them.

The Legislature failed last year to craft a comprehensive approach to claims from those wrongly convicted and is trying again this year. But the bills that seem to have the most momentum are deeply flawed and morally wrong, because they would bar the wrongly convicted from receiving compensation if they had a single prior felony.

It is an understandable impulse that the Legislature wants to prevent criminals from being compensated. But a prior criminal record shouldn't be a consideration. The state has a moral obligation to redress a wrong, even if the person harmed has not led a perfect life.

Alan Crotzer is an example of someone who would lose compensation under the proposed legislation. He was recently released after serving 24 years in prison for a brutal rape and robbery that DNA and other evidence revealed he did not commit. As a young man he was convicted of holding up a store and stealing beer. The earlier holdup was the reason his mug shot was available to be wrongly identified as a perpetrator.

It is highly likely that had Crotzer come from a more affluent family, a good lawyer could have gotten the felony charge reduced. But that didn't happen, and now the Legislature is flirting with denying compensation to anyone wrongly imprisoned who has prior felony convictions. Imagine spending 24 years behind bars for a crime you didn't commit and then having the state say it doesn't owe you a dime because of a previous crime you did commit. This would be unconscionable.

While both the House approach and the Senate bill have their flaws, the House version is somewhat better. It doesn't prevent people who pleaded guilty from receiving compensation if they were actually innocent; the Senate bill would.

The system tends to punish defendants who try to assert their right to trial, and it rewards those who are willing to plea bargain. Yet there have been plenty of documented cases where innocent people "confessed" or pleaded guilty because they were threatened with long prison sentences.

Finally, neither bill allows compensation to be granted if the finding of innocence came through the clemency power of the executive branch rather than adjudged by a court. If the governor and Cabinet are convinced that a prisoner is innocent, why shouldn't there be compensation?

The tenor of these bills makes the wrongfully convicted out to be money-grubbing pariahs looking to rip off the state rather than what they are: victims of state incompetence, arrogance or tragic error. These people suffered terribly. They lost everything but their lives. Legislators are doing the right thing by trying to create a system where those wrongly imprisoned are compensated. But trying to avoid paying those imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit because of their earlier convictions is dead wrong.

[Last modified April 6, 2006, 18:20:03]