Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How inmate Michael Morton lost 25 years of his life

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 85 posts

Re: How inmate Michael Morton lost 25 years of his life

#71

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

girvo wrote: post #38
brazzy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are certain, after reading some newspaper articles, that Ken Anderson abused his position for personal gain, and the most important thing to you is that he be punished more severely. Your slogan: "an eye for an eye". Other people were certain, after reading some newspaper articles, that Michael Morton murdered his wife because she would not submit to him sexually, and the most important thing to them was that he…

No, they have evidence here. Quite a lot of it, in fact. Enough to get Mr Morton off his huge sentence. And enough for the Judge to step down, and plead guilty. Not equivalent, in my opinion.

The police probably beat that confession out of Anderson. /s

Re: How inmate Michael Morton lost 25 years of his life

#72

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

brazzy wrote: post #46
middleclick wrote: post #37

> Morton was freed in October 2011. He was 57 years old. "I thank God this wasn't a capital case," he said. I don't mean to turn this into an atheism debate, but personally, as someone who is an atheist, I find it fascinating how people still manage to have faith in God after such a case even after they spent 25 years of their life for a crime they did not commit. Don't get me wrong - the faith people have really ama…

According to the article, Morton only became religious while he was in prison. I guess starting to believe that there's something more important than the real world is one way of coping with a staggering injustice suffered in it.

In Texas prisons, religious ministries are allowed time and facilities to preach to inmates. The chapel in Texas prisons is often one of the only air-conditioned spaces (other than the library). Consequently, (I suspect) religious participation among inmates is higher than it might otherwise be.

source: I was a correctional officer in Texas for a couple of years.

Re: How inmate Michael Morton lost 25 years of his life

#73

Post by nate_meurer »

brazzy wrote: post #39
nate_meurer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your last sentence, but I think it's a bit out of place here. The OP didn't call for a disproportionate sentence. Prosecutor Ken Anderson deliberate falsified a case that cost Mr Morton 25 years of his life. A 25 year sentence for Ken Anderson would seem perfectly reasonable to me.

The OP is calling for a disproportionate sentence. 25 years is more than many murderers get. It seems reasonable to you because you are in fact judging this case emotionally, not reasonably. Your empathy towards the victim causes you to want revenge, believing it to be justice.

> "you are in fact judging this case emotionally, not reasonably."

That's a pretty bold assumption. And it happens to be wrong in this case.

I'm not focused on the 25 years, but rather on the equivalence between the sentences. If a law were to be proposed, that the sentence for prosecutorial misconduct be comparable to the sentences so wrongfully achieved, it would have my vote regardless of the emotional context.

Re: How inmate Michael Morton lost 25 years of his life

#74

Post by nate_meurer »

viraptor wrote: post #42
nate_meurer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your last sentence, but I think it's a bit out of place here. The OP didn't call for a disproportionate sentence. Prosecutor Ken Anderson deliberate falsified a case that cost Mr Morton 25 years of his life. A 25 year sentence for Ken Anderson would seem perfectly reasonable to me.

Since when is it about revenge rather than education when you put people in jail? Do you really believe 10/15/20/25 years in this case would make a difference? It sounds like you're going for the eye for an eye solution here.

This is not about revenge for me.

> "Do you really believe 10/15/20/25 years in this case would make a difference?"

And do you think 10 days in prison is going to make a difference?

To answer your question, yes, I believe serious consequences for prosecutorial misconduct will make a difference. Making the sentence for malicious prosecution comparable to the sentence suffered by the victim is simply a guideline that I personally would find reasonable.

EDIT: I should have said "I would find reasonable in this particular case, i.e., that of prosecutorial misconduct". I agree that talionic justice (eye-for-an-eye) leads to gross dysfunctional if put to general use. But I'm not convinced that makes it inappropriate in all cases.

Re: How inmate Michael Morton lost 25 years of his life

#75

Post by brazzy »

wavefunction wrote: post #69
brazzy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are certain, after reading some newspaper articles, that Ken Anderson abused his position for personal gain, and the most important thing to you is that he be punished more severely. Your slogan: "an eye for an eye". Other people were certain, after reading some newspaper articles, that Michael Morton murdered his wife because she would not submit to him sexually, and the most important thing to them was that he…

I am certain and I do not see the equivalency. This news story is local to me and is one of many examples of innocent individuals in Texas that have been railroaded by the "authorities" here. In prison, Morton had to put up with forced manual labor, filthy and inhumane conditions, fight off a rapist, and lose 25 years of his life. Anderson had to do 5 days in jail and pay a $500 fine. He should be drug behind a vehic…

YOU should be drug behind a vehicle until you see the equivalency. All you're doing is reiterating that YOU consider this crime so heinous that the rule of law shouldn't apply - which just happens to be close to what this guy did.

Re: How inmate Michael Morton lost 25 years of his life

#76

Post by brazzy »

nate_meurer wrote: post #73
brazzy wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP is calling for a disproportionate sentence. 25 years is more than many murderers get. It seems reasonable to you because you are in fact judging this case emotionally, not reasonably. Your empathy towards the victim causes you to want revenge, believing it to be justice.

> "you are in fact judging this case emotionally, not reasonably." That's a pretty bold assumption. And it happens to be wrong in this case. I'm not focused on the 25 years, but rather on the equivalence between the sentences. If a law were to be proposed, that the sentence for prosecutorial misconduct be comparable to the sentences so wrongfully achieved, it would have my vote regardless of the emotional context.

So basically an eye for an eye all over again. Never mind the consequences, like incentivizing prosecutors to avoid long sentences at all cost to reduce their personal risk.

Re: How inmate Michael Morton lost 25 years of his life

#77

Post by viraptor »

nate_meurer wrote: post #74
viraptor wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when is it about revenge rather than education when you put people in jail? Do you really believe 10/15/20/25 years in this case would make a difference? It sounds like you're going for the eye for an eye solution here.

This is not about revenge for me. > "Do you really believe 10/15/20/25 years in this case would make a difference?" And do you think 10 days in prison is going to make a difference? To answer your question, yes, I believe serious consequences for prosecutorial misconduct will make a difference. Making the sentence for malicious prosecution comparable to the sentence suffered by the victim is simply a guideline that I…

No, but I really don't think anything over 10 years really can influence the person's behaviour. It's a 20->30, or 30->40 years jump - not only you took a lot of their life and broke most of their outside connections, but also the natural character change takes place. Holding someone for 20+ years would make them both useless to the society afterwards and unlikely to be able to live on their own.

I'll look later to see if anyone analysed this in real cases, but my intuition is that there's some limit where it doesn't make a difference anymore whether you add more years - only guarantees that the jailed person has no way to go back to any kind of reasonable life afterwards.

Re: How inmate Michael Morton lost 25 years of his life

#78

Post by melling »

girvo wrote: post #52
melling wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a stance. Like most people, it's not something that I really give much thought to. I'm trying to cut through the storm of complaining so I can get to the facts. What problems are you trying to solve beyond the fact that we never want someone who is innocent to go to jail?

Personally, my opinion is that prosecutors have incentives that don't align with the good of society (if we take "Innocent people should not go to jail" as a good thing, and a worthy goal). Their incentives are to convict as many people as possible; this case we're discussing is a good example of that effect. If you take a look at this[0], you can see that per capita incarceration in the US has grown a lot , especial…

So, you are saying that because prosecutors are trying to convict "as many people as possible", the problem is that too many innocent people are going to jail. I think we've established this isn't the problem. People are committing "crimes", but many people feel that the crimes are too harsh. For example, someone mentioned that a crack user gets 90 days while a cocaine user only gets 30 days.

Also, in the story about which we are discussing, the prosecutor broke the law. In my opinion, his punishment should have been harsher.

Re: How inmate Michael Morton lost 25 years of his life

#79

Post by nate_meurer »

brazzy wrote: post #76
nate_meurer wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "you are in fact judging this case emotionally, not reasonably." That's a pretty bold assumption. And it happens to be wrong in this case. I'm not focused on the 25 years, but rather on the equivalence between the sentences. If a law were to be proposed, that the sentence for prosecutorial misconduct be comparable to the sentences so wrongfully achieved, it would have my vote regardless of the emotional context.

So basically an eye for an eye all over again. Never mind the consequences, like incentivizing prosecutors to avoid long sentences at all cost to reduce their personal risk.

I'm very much against "eye for an eye" as a general principle, but in this particular case -- in the inner workings of our judicial system -- I think it has utility.

> "Never mind the consequences, like incentivizing prosecutors to avoid long sentences..."

That is indeed part of the point! If we can agree that sentencing has spiraled out of control in this country (and I suspect we can), then perhaps a strong disincentive for misbehavior within the system would be beneficial?

Re: How inmate Michael Morton lost 25 years of his life

#80

Post by aestra »

melling wrote: post #61
aestra wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is well know the US has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Both per capita and by sheer numbers. All the breakdown you can ever ask for is here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta... This part is what people are usually talking about: Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rate…

Burglary, and theft in general, is a non-violent crime. If you're caught 3 times for that, shouldn't the punishment be more severe? Similarly, selling heroin is a non-violent crime. It would be helpful to see a more detailed breakdown on the effects of the "war on crime." By the way, I understand that the "three strikes" laws have had some unintended consequences and should be revisited.

I don't have an opinion on either, I am just presenting what most people talk about when they speak about the rising prison population of the United States.

It can be a snowball effect as well, putting people in prison early for say, drug use at a young age, creates a prison culture, where the person keeps going back to prison. If that person didn't go to prison in the first place they might not be put in a position to keep breaking the law. This is all really a guess on my part, but I feel that it might be the case.

Post reply on HN