A cognitively challenged man, 50 years old waits in his bedroom, that he calls his cell, to be allowed to come into the kitchen for breakfast. When he gets there he asks for his "tray" instead of for someone to pass the scrambled eggs. This is what happens after 30 years of systematic abuse. But in this case the abuser wasn't a Grimm Fairy Tale inspired step-parent but rather was the perfectly legal prison system where Henry McCollum lived on death row as an innocent man. This isn't a diary about the abusive practices of prison, though that subject could be a series of diaries in and of itself. This diary is about the consequences of sending an innocent man to prison for 30 years and about how the horror doesn't end with exoneration. Or maybe more accurately, it is about the lack of consequences to anyone other than the innocent man.
Some of you may remember a diary I published back in September about the exoneration of Mr. McCollum and his half-brother entitled, "Does a Supreme Court Justice just say...Oops?". This weekend the Raleigh News and Observer published a follow-up to Mr. McCollum's story and it further illustrates just what kind of horror is incurred with wrongful convictions. He now lives with his family who tries to give him support but who can't afford rent...nor to keep the water on. He can't get a job. He can't get compensation at this time because he was exonerated by the N.C. Innocence Commission instead of through the usual process of direct appeal and habeas. That compensation is that the mercy of a highly political, right wing flunky of a Governor who has to formally pardon him before he can be compensated for the wrong done to him. While the Governor dithers, Mr. McCollum can't even get a job as a janitor.
Last year saw the highest number of exonerations ever. Some were because no crime was committed, one took 39 years and one only took 3 days. But in every case, someone was subjected to the horror of being falsely accused of a crime they didn't commit. And every one of them was unfairly punished for that crime --whether it was three days of thirty years. For ages people have debated the question of whether it is better to let 10 people go free rather than risk punishing an innocent person. And the answer probably isn't black and white. (Though there is a clear difference in treatment in the criminal justice system if you are black and not white).
There's always an inherent conflict between the desire to protect and punish and the need for accuracy and fairness. But there is also no question that in many of the cases fairness wasn't the overriding concern. I'm sure there are many ethical prosecutors. But, as with law enforcement and any organization whose success is measured by convictions obtained, there is a expectation that they should be immune from criticism-- and certainly from consequences. As in the case of Mr. McCollum, there is frequently an ego-driven prosecutor who overlooks evidence of other guilt in order to pursue prosecution against the defendant they have selected for prosecution. In NC Alan Gell was convicted and spent 4 years on death row when police officers hid evidence that he was in jail at the time of the murder... and prosecutors mis-led everyone about it. No one was punished for those lies and misrepresentations--unless you consider a "formal scolding" punishment. In other cases they escape any punishment at all. On an interesting note, the prosecutor in that case, Kenneth Honeycutt used to give his assistant prosecutors little "noose" tie pins whenever they would garner a death sentence conviction.
Prosecutors are rarely even called out about their behavior with appellate courts keeping their names out of opinions and finding "harmless error" even though the lies and misrepresentations are proven. In fact, it is so rare that a Judge calls out prosecutors publicly for their bad behavior, it is big news when it happens. And IF it happens, prosecutors revolt.. It is amazing to see how vehemently prosecutors react to the suggestion that they play fair and follow the law and their ethical duties.
Even the suggestion that prosecutors play fair is considered untenable. Just this past week as U.S. District Court Judge appointed by the President to a commission to improve forensic science in the criminal justice system quit in protest when the U.S. Attorney's Office interfered with the commission's recommendation that prosecutors play fair
"U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff of New York said he quit because the Justice Department had barred it from recommending an expansion of the exchange of pretrial information to include more evidence from forensic experts. Prosecutors routinely share evidence with defense lawyers. Rakoff said in his resignation letter that the ban contradicts the panel’s charter and voids months of work."
For years people who are strong proponents of "law and order" have stressed the need for people to be accountable for their actions. That accountability needs to extend to everyone who does wrong -- especially those who are entrusted with the power to literally seek life or death. In Mr. McCollum's and his half-brother's cases that accountability needs to come from the State that took so much away from him. It ought to come from a Supreme Court and justice system that won't even bother to just say, "Oops". And it needs to come from a society that took away 30 years from innocent men.