Death Row Inmate Proven Innocent & Released

[Timbuk2]

DNA evidence overturns 30-year convictions in US case



2nd Sept 2014

Two US men who spent three decades in prison for rape and murder, one of them on death row, have been released after DNA evidence proved their innocence.

Mentally disabled half brothers Henry McCollum, 50, and Leon Brown, 46, were convicted in 1984 of raping and killing an 11-year-old girl in North Carolina.

Recently analysed DNA evidence from the crime scene implicated another man, who is in prison for a similar crime.

A county judge ordered the immediate release of the brothers.

Tuesday's court judgement followed an investigation by the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission, which tested DNA evidence found at the scene.

The commission found that none could be traced to Mr McCollum or Mr Brown.

"This case is a tragedy which has profoundly affected not only the lives of the people involved, but which profoundly affects our system of justice in North Carolina," said lawyer for Mr Brown, Ann Kirby.

The near-naked body of 11-year-old Sabrina Buie was found in 1983 near the town of Red Springs, North Carolina. She had been raped before being killed.

Mr McCollum and Mr Brown, who were 19 and 15 at the time, were picked up by police a few weeks later. There was no physical evidence connecting them to the crime.

Mr McCollum confessed after five hours of intense questioning, without a lawyer or family member present. His younger brother also signed a confession written by the police.

The two later recanted their confessions in court, saying they were made under duress. But despite a weak case, the brothers were found guilty and given death sentences.

Mr Brown's sentence was later reduced to life in prison and his charge reduced to rape, but Mr McCollum remained on death row for three decades.

In the years since their false confessions, Mr McCollum and Mr Brown maintained their innocence and made a number of appeals.

In 2010 the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission took up their case and uncovered evidence the men's legal team had not been able to obtain.

The evidence found no link between the brothers and the victim, but did implicate Roscoe Artis, 74, who lived close to where the victim's body was found.

Although he was not a suspect in the original case, Artis was found guilty for the rape and murder of another girl in similar circumstances less than a month after Sabrina Buie's killing.

After Tuesday's release of Mr McCollum and Mr Brown, their legal team thanked those who had worked to correct wrongs that occurred under the previous prosecutions

"It's terrifying that our justice system allowed two intellectually disabled children to go to prison for a crime they had nothing to do with, and then to suffer there for 30 years," said lawyer Ken Rose.

"It's impossible to put into words what these men have been through and how much they have lost."

Shoulda just killed 'em anyway, they mighta stolen toothpaste or somethin'.

~

1) Why wasn't this case reviewed earlier?
- No evidence linking them to the crime
- Confessions given under duress
- No adult or family member present during questioning
- ... for 30 years ...

2) Mentally disabled people can be thrown in prison? Yay medieval justice.

3) How many other innocents have been put down before their innocence came to light?

[Loki]

So killing them is super bad, but a system that allows innocent men to stay in prison for 30 years is ok (don't see you protesting against the latter)...

[Aimless]

I'm a little ambivalent about addressing the judicial system's--and life's--problems by killing people so they become irrelevant. Don't get me wrong, it's a very effective solution, but it just feels off

[Khendraja'aro]

So killing them is super bad, but a system that allows innocent men to stay in prison for 30 years is ok (don't see you protesting against the latter)...

I don't see you protesting against the slaughter of dolphins in Japan either. You're obviously okay with that.

[LittleFuzzy]

I don't see you protesting against the slaughter of dolphins in Japan either. You're obviously okay with that.

Darn tootin! There may be room for more than one pseudo-intelligent race on this planet but I refuse to share a biosphere with those smug whistling bastards.

[Khendraja'aro]

Well, I for myself just signed up for some seal clubbin'.

[Timbuk2]

So killing them is super bad, but a system that allows innocent men to stay in prison for 30 years is ok (don't see you protesting against the latter)...

Didja miss my entire point #1?

If so; lockin people up for 30 years without due process is; bad.

[Loki]

In that case, surely the problem is with due process and not the death penalty.

[Timbuk2]

My commentary is on both.

[Aimless]

In that case, surely the problem is with due process and not the death penalty.

There is a problem with both if the death penalty is applied in a reality where there are problems with due process.

[Khendraja'aro]

So, Loki, you still haven't adressed the dolphins issue!

[Flixy]

So killing them is super bad, but a system that allows innocent men to stay in prison for 30 years is ok (don't see you protesting against the latter)...

No


A system that allows innocent men to stay in prison for 30 years is far from okay, and given you have a system like that, killing them is an even worse idea.


Also, learn to fucking read, if that's what you're reading from this post. #1 and #2 are protesting the latter, specifically, only #3 is about the death sentence.

[Dreadnaught]

Things like this are why I've become convinced the death penalty is greater in theory than in practice.

[Loki]

No


A system that allows innocent men to stay in prison for 30 years is far from okay, and given you have a system like that, killing them is an even worse idea.


Also, learn to fucking read, if that's what you're reading from this post. #1 and #2 are protesting the latter, specifically, only #3 is about the death sentence.

You mean the fact that we have a system that's not perfect? Is that your standard for public policy? Don't act unless you can obtain perfection? How about we double spending on healthcare to prevent anyone from dying due to waiting times in emergency rooms? Or triple funding on fire departments to make sure that no house unnecessarily burns down? Or require numerous forms of ID when voting to prevent anyone from voting fraudulently?

[Flixy]

You mean the fact that we have a system that's not perfect? Is that your standard for public policy? Don't act unless you can obtain perfection? How about we double spending on healthcare to prevent anyone from dying due to waiting times in emergency rooms? Or triple funding on fire departments to make sure that no house unnecessarily burns down? Or require numerous forms of ID when voting to prevent anyone from voting fraudulently?

I realise you're just trolling now, but, no, that is not my standard, nor did I claim it was, and yet again you are reading things that aren't there.

[GGT]

You mean the fact that we have a system that's not perfect? Is that your standard for public policy? Don't act unless you can obtain perfection? How about we double spending on healthcare to prevent anyone from dying due to waiting times in emergency rooms? Or triple funding on fire departments to make sure that no house unnecessarily burns down? Or require numerous forms of ID when voting to prevent anyone from voting fraudulently?

Perfection isn't the enemy of the good.

[Loki]

I realise you're just trolling now, but, no, that is not my standard, nor did I claim it was, and yet again you are reading things that aren't there.

Then why the obsession with the death penalty? Let's say one innocent person gets executed each year because of flaws with our judicial system. How is that any more problematic than thousands dying from flaws with our medical system?

[Enoch the Red]

Then why the obsession with the death penalty? Let's say one innocent person gets executed each year because of flaws with our judicial system. How is that any more problematic than thousands dying from flaws with our medical system?

The reason is likely because unlike those other scenarios, the justice system, and by extension society as a whole are directly responsible for their death. That carries with it a much heavier burden than possible flaws in our medical system.

[GGT]

Then why the obsession with the death penalty? Let's say one innocent person gets executed each year because of flaws with our judicial system. How is that any more problematic than thousands dying from flaws with our medical system?

One innocent person executed by the state shouldn't be tolerated, period. That's an active act that shouldn't be compared to, or equated with other governmental sentences.

[Loki]

The reason is likely because unlike those other scenarios, the justice system, and by extension society as a whole are directly responsible for their death. That carries with it a much heavier burden than possible flaws in our medical system.

A lack of spending on hospitals, fire departments, roads, etc. is directly responsible for numerous preventable deaths. Heck, we could probably save hundreds of lives each year just by tweaking some driving regulations, at no cost to the taxpayer. The reality is that each public policy has trade-offs. If an execution deters several murders (something for which there is strong evidence in at least some scenarios), then are you not responsible for those murders if you fail to execute?

One innocent person executed by the state shouldn't be tolerated, period. That's an active act that shouldn't be compared to, or equated with other governmental sentences.

Lots of things shouldn't be tolerated but are. I can equally say that one innocent person shouldn't be imprisoned by the state. Or punished by the state in anyway. Good luck coming up with such a system.

[GGT]

Lots of things shouldn't be tolerated but are. I can equally say that one innocent person shouldn't be imprisoned by the state. Or punished by the state in anyway. Good luck coming up with such a system.

That system wouldn't execute people. And guess what? Many states have taken the Death Penalty off their menu.

As an American citizen I find it perplexing, even unnerving, that criminality depends on state residency.

[Aimless]

You mean the fact that we have a system that's not perfect? Is that your standard for public policy? Don't act unless you can obtain perfection? How about we double spending on healthcare to prevent anyone from dying due to waiting times in emergency rooms? Or triple funding on fire departments to make sure that no house unnecessarily burns down? Or require numerous forms of ID when voting to prevent anyone from voting fraudulently?

Commission vs omission

[Loki]

Not much of a distinction to the people relying on the government for protection (part of the social contract).

And fine, I'll play this game. Cutting funding for the health services during a recession would lead to people unnecessarily dying. Act of commission in that instance. Same for any other cuts. Same is true for any new bureaucratic rule that leads to extra deaths (especially as it relates to driving).

[Enoch the Red]

A lack of spending on hospitals, fire departments, roads, etc. is directly responsible for numerous preventable deaths. Heck, we could probably save hundreds of lives each year just by tweaking some driving regulations, at no cost to the taxpayer. The reality is that each public policy has trade-offs. If an execution deters several murders (something for which there is strong evidence in at least some scenarios), then are you not responsible for those murders if you fail to execute?

No, and no. There is a distinct difference between actively taking a life and philosophical disagreements on the role of government and the welfare it provides to its citizens. I don't believe that the government should be responsible for providing healthcare, or absolute protection from fire or potholes. It is, however, directly responsible for meting out the death penalty. Nor is it responsible for any murders committed by individuals who conceivably might have been deterred. That burden lies with the perpetrators alone.

Or do you believe the police are responsible for the murders they did not prevent?

[Loki]

You seem to be conflating moral responsibility with political/policy responsibility. The police is not morally responsible for murders that take place due to poor policing strategies (though one can make a moral argument here), but they sure as hell politically responsible.

[Enoch the Red]

You seem to be conflating moral responsibility with political/policy responsibility. The police is not morally responsible for murders that take place due to poor policing strategies (though one can make a moral argument here), but they sure as hell politically responsible.

Right, which is why I find your inability to recognize the difference between actively killing a person, and thereby assuming the moral responsibility of their death, and not being able to provide a service which might prevent someones death, so surprising.

[Loki]

Except we're not talking about "might". We're talking about will. The only difference is that we don't know which specific person will be killed.

[Enoch the Red]

Except we're not talking about "might". We're talking about will. The only difference is that we don't know which specific person will be killed.

The only difference you see between executing an innocent and wrongly convicted person and not providing a perfectly safe road system is that we wouldn't know which person we were saving?