posted 08-24-2001 10:24         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chess Piece Face:
Or find it somewhere else.

---

posted 08-24-2001 10:37            

quote:

---

You should post the article so people dont have to register.

---

Doh - registered so long ago, I forgot you had to do it to get in....

AUG 24, 2001
Death Row Inmate Is Freed After DNA Test Clears Him
By RAYMOND BONNER
OISE, Idaho, Aug. 23 — Charles Fain has been on death row for almost 18 years for the rape and murder of a 9-year-old girl who was snatched off the street in Nampa, a small town west of here.

But this afternoon, Mr. Fain, 11 days shy of his 53rd birthday, walked out of the maximum security prison here into the blazing sun, a free man. Two hours earlier, a state judge ordered the charges against him dismissed on the basis of DNA tests indicating that hairs found on the girl's body, which had been used to convict Mr. Fain, were not his.

"Sometimes it looked pretty dark," Mr. Fain said, but he said he had been confident he would be exonerated. "I'm 100 percent innocent. The day the crime happened, I was sound asleep at my dad's" house — 360 miles away in Redmond, Ore.

Mr. Fain had difficulty today using the seat belts in the car that drove him away from prison — they were not mandatory when he went to prison — held on tightly when he rode in an elevator to his lawyer's ninth- floor office and was uneasy walking on thick carpet. "I'm used to walking five steps forward, five steps back, then three steps to the side," he said, describing life in his cell.

Mr. Fain was convicted of the Feb. 24, 1982, kidnapping, rape and murder of the girl, Daralyn Johnson, after a forensics expert from the Federal Bureau of Investigation said microscopic examination — the standard test at the time — showed three hairs found on the victim's body were probably Mr. Fain's.

"Justice requires the action we have taken today," David L. Young, the Canyon County prosecutor, said today at a news conference in Caldwell, where the case had been tried. "It also requires that we do everything we can to solve this case."

Mr. Young added, "The killer has not yet been apprehended."

Today the Johnson family seemed to accept Mr. Fain's release.

"We would like to say we are in complete support of the judicial system and all those involved in the reinvestigation of this case," the family said in a statement. "We are confident that we will have closure and that all those involved will be brought to justice."

At least 96 people have been exonerated and freed from death rows in 22 states since the death penalty was reinstated in 1973, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit group in Washington that opposes capital punishment.

Six death-row inmates were exonerated in the first half of this year, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, said in June. Mr. Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has sponsored a bill to improve the quality of defense counsel and ensure the availability of DNA testing in capital cases.

The Johnson murder shook the residents of Nampa. The girl had been abducted as she walked to Lincoln Elementary School, then raped; her body was thrown in a ditch near the Snake River. It was not found for several days.

After seven months, the police were stymied. Then they picked up Mr. Fain. A Vietnam veteran who had served with the 101st Airborne, Mr. Fain had difficulty holding a job after his honorable discharge, bouncing between Idaho and Oregon. At the time of his questioning, he was living in Nampa, a block from Daralyn's house.

His address, and his light-brown hair — similar to that found on Daralyn's body — were the reasons he was called in for questioning, his appellate lawyers said in one filing.

Mr. Fain was among scores of men asked to give hair samples. An F.B.I. expert concluded that his were similar to those found on Daralyn.

A month later, the police interrogated Mr. Fain for more than two hours, then asked him to take a polygraph test; he agreed.

A state examiner of the test concluded that Mr. Fain was telling the truth when he denied involvement in the rape and murder. At the trial, though, prosecutors objected to introducing the polygraph results as evidence and the judge agreed.

Some of the most damning evidence against Mr. Fain was the testimony of two jailhouse informers. The men gave lurid details of what they said Mr. Fain had told them about what he had done to Daralyn.

It is not clear why the two men gave what now appears to be false testimony. One of Mr. Fain's appellate lawyers, Spencer McIntyre, said it showed how jailhouse informers manipulate the system, knowing that if they cooperate, the authorities will go easier on them — even without an explicit promise or deal.

One person who always contended Mr. Fain was innocent was Christine Harding, a librarian at the Redmond Public Library. She testified at his trial that in February 1982 he was a regular at the library, though she could not say unequivocally that he was there on Feb. 24.

"Awesome!" an elated Mrs. Harding exclaimed today when told the news in a telephone interview from Garden City, S.D., where she now lives. "Praise God. I just think it's pathetic so many years of Charles's life have been taken away from him that can't be given back."

But Richard Harris, the original prosecutor, said the DNA test had not shaken his view, citing the testimony of the two informers.

"It doesn't really change my opinion that much that Fain's guilty," Mr. Harris said. "The case was a circumstantial-evidence case. There was a myriad of circumstances that pointed in his direction."

The trial judge, James Doolittle, also said he had no doubt that Mr. Fain was guilty. "If I had had the slightest doubt, I certainly would not have imposed the death penalty," said Judge Doolittle, who is retired.

D. Fredrick Hoopes, an Idaho lawyer who has worked on the case for more than a decade, said such reactions reinforced the problems with the death penalty. "We just can't kill people who we are sure are guilty," Mr. Hoopes said.

Mr. Fain's parents died while he was in prison; he did not know where he would live or what he would do now. "One day at a time," he said at his lawyer's office. Asked what he would have for dinner, he said, "whatever they put on the tray." Then, realizing he was not going to be fed by authorities tonight, he said, "I'll have to start making decisions for myself."

posted 08-24-2001 11:25            

I've been following the wrongful conviction issue for some years now. Given the number of serious crime cases where the authorities have either screwed up or knowingly railroaded someone, I conclude that it must be happening all of the time in lesser cases. I've lost all respect for the legal system. The sad fact is that average Americans can no longer trust their police or prosecutors. Too many of them don't have as primary motives the apprehension and conviction of the guilty. Rather, their motive has become the clearing of cases no matter what. The use of jail-house snitches is particularly worrisome. How could a sane society ever allow such testimony?

Another technique used to convict the innocent is to force them to confess. This is done by piling on charge after charge until their victim decides a plea bargain is his best chance see this column by Paul Craig Roberts for the gruesome details. Mr. Roberts has been writing about this and similar issues for a while. Here's another one of his columns on a related issue. (A few more: one, two, three, four.)

What this means to you is that if you ever come in contact with the justice system, you cannot assume that it is going to treat you fairly. They are out to get you, and they are going to use every means they can to do so, period. This is true even if you know you've done nothing wrong. So the first thing you should do, if arrested, is shut up. That is your constitutional right; use it. You are allowed to have an attorney; get one. Even if you are guilty and intend to confess, make sure your attorney handles it for you.

Here's an example that could happen to any of us: You are driving in your car. For some reason you are distracted. Your distraction causes an accident. Someone is killed. There is no question that it's your fault; you should have been paying attention. Like any decent human being, you feel devastated. Like any responsible adult, you intend to accept the consequences of your actions. It is imperative at this point that you keep your head, keep your mouth shut, and get a lawyer. (This is especially true if you've recently had even a single beer.) Let your lawyer handle any dealings with the legal system. If you don't, you will be fresh meat to those people and they will use you as an example to show how tough they can be on crime.

posted 08-24-2001 12:01         

I'll wage that for every unjust prosecution, there are dozens of guilty that walk.

posted 08-24-2001 12:28            

I'm sure that over half of the people in prison are guilty of something, but I'm reasonably sure that there is a significant minority who either didn't do anything illegal or who are victims of circumstance and momentary bad judgment who didn't intend to do anything wrong and who aren't a threat to society.

posted 08-24-2001 12:44            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill:
willingly

---

Except for those whose addiction overtakes their will. But they aren't important.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill:
all consensual crimes should be decriminalized

---

posted 08-24-2001 13:06            

Furthermore, the drug war is the cause of most of the social pathology involved with drugs. Before nonprescription opiates became illegal in this country, for example, there were many people who managed to live relatively productive lives while maintaining laudanum addictions. (See Licit & Illicit Drugs by Edward M. Brecher and the editors of Consumer Reports.)

posted 08-24-2001 13:32         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill:
"momentary bad judgment who didn't intend to do anything wrong"

---

Momentary bad judgment? Didn’t intend to do anything wrong?
Please try to explain these concepts to a victim's family. There are a lot of victim's families out there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill:
A thing that further sickens me is that nearly half of the people in prison are there for drug crimes.
[/B]

---

A crime by definition is a violation of law.
Are all these people ignorant of the fact that were performing a illegal act?

I am in fact pro drug; nobody should tell what to put in my body. BUT, I understand that if I choose to use these drugs I am violating the law and act accordingly.
Sorry, no sympathy for the druggies in jail. The "war on drugs" is not the issue here.

-Marcel

posted 08-24-2001 18:24            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill:
CPF, you just like stirring things up.

---

posted 08-24-2001 18:50            

quote:

---

Originally posted by marcel:
Sorry, no sympathy for the druggies in jail. The "war on drugs" is not the issue here.

---

Yeah! Fuck those "druggies" - if they didn't want to go to jail, they shoulda gotten into the same social circle as the DA... I mean, the DA wouldn't be looking to convict folks who bought coke from the same dealer HE used, now would he?

Besides, if the dirty fuckers wanted to get all messed up, they should have gotten drunk! That's legal, 'cause nobody ever gets addicted to alcohol or suffers any sort of physical dysfunctions as a result of heavy use.

posted 08-24-2001 21:45            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimbo:
Yeah! Fuck those "druggies" - if they didn't want to go to jail, they shoulda gotten into the same social circle as the DA... I mean, the DA wouldn't be looking to convict folks who bought coke from the same dealer HE used, now would he?

Besides, if the dirty fuckers wanted to get all messed up, they should have gotten drunk! That's legal, 'cause nobody ever gets addicted to alcohol or suffers any sort of physical dysfunctions as a result of heavy use.

You're right man, FUCK those people who broke The Law. The Law is whatever The Man says it is, and therefore should be obeyed! It's not our problem to worry about why The Law is what it is - just to obey... Obey... OBEY!!!11

---

Is that sarcasm? I can't tell.

posted 08-25-2001 23:52            

quote:

---

Originally posted by marcel:
The scales are imbalanced in BOTH directions,
ain't that right O.J.?
...
I'll wage that for every unjust prosecution, there are dozens of guilty that walk.

---

Maybe I'm the dumb one here, but so what?

That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.
-- Benjamin Franklin

We're way the hell behind quota. Not every crime will be, or should be, solved. The people who made up that "reasonable doubt" stuff weren't just soft on crime. These days, I think most americans wouldn't even accept a 2-1 ration of unpunished guilty to punished innocents. They want even money, and fuck it pisses me off.

posted 08-27-2001 08:13         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimbo:
Yeah! Fuck those "druggies" - if they didn't want to go to jail, they shoulda gotten into the same social circle as the DA... I mean, the DA wouldn't be looking to convict folks who bought coke from the same dealer HE used, now would he?

---

Are you adressing social class here?
or commenting on a corrupt legal system?
sarcasim atempt? what?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimbo:
Besides, if the dirty fuckers wanted to get all messed up, they should have gotten drunk You're right man, FUCK those people who broke The Law. The Law is whatever The Man says it is, and therefore should be obeyed! Obey... OBEY!!!

---

Dope is dope. Weather you get it from the doctor, the street corner, the booze store.
Why can't people get it thorough their head that alcohol is a DRUG. No different than other drugs, yea it's legal and also very easy to test for. It's irrelevant to differentiate which DRUG a person was prosecuted for. Obviously, that person could not use the drug without fucking up and violating the law.

There seems to be a common disregard in this thread for the many VICTIMS of crimes.

So using your philosophy; FUCK THE MANY VICTIMS OF CRIME!!! They should have gotten out of the way of that drunk driver. They should not have been in the neighborhood of that jacked up crack head when he killed them and stole their car.

WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK LAWS ARE MADE?
Perhaps to define acceptable behavior and to protect the otherwise 95% of society who don't rape, kill or steal?
The "MAN" doesn’t make the laws, WE make them through out elected officials. I'm assuming you live in the U.S., right?

Yea, you're right, FUCK the druggies in jail.
Maybe its time to send a message to potential lawbreakers that they can't get away with shitting on the law abiding segment of society any longer. Guess what?
The "druggies" laugh at you; you are a part of their reality that they are quite good at "getting over" on. Know any hard core "druggies"?

My wife's sister in law was gunned down in a drug deal (as a passer by) in NYC, the shit head who did it was caught, did 5 years and was released. Guess what? FUCK HIM. Got off because he was "crazed" on crack.

Let a hundred guilty walk, to protect one?
Sounds good on paper. Does it work? Hell no.
Society won't stand for it.

Obey or go to jail, simple choice. Almost sounds like a free will discussion to me.

posted 08-27-2001 11:26            

Notice how Jimbo didn't include 'murderers' in his sarcastic little tirade there.

Someone who buys and smokes 10 grams or so of cannabis a week... (or more, or less) JUST ISN'T A CRIMINAL.

Drinking alchohol isn't a crime. However, notice the distinction here: Drinking alcohol to excess, losing control of yourself, and causing harm to another person or property IS a crime.

So what, exactly, is different about ANY other drug? I know people who can do an 8 ball in a night and still maintain their 4.0 fucking GPA. Without killing people, or causing bodily harm, or even being politically incorrect in social situations.

Your problem with this is... what exactly?

posted 08-27-2001 12:50         

quote:

---

Originally posted by InThrees:
Marcel, a 'crack head' who kills someone for pocket change isn't just a druggie, he's a murderer.

---

Agreed.
Let's review for a moment.
The original thread was regard to plea bargaining and the widespread use thereof,
thus creating an increased prosecution rate. Or worse, convicting the innocent.
It was stated in a supporting editorial that 50% of persons in prison were there due to drug convictions.

It was my contention that the persons in prison due to drug conviction are there due to their choice to buy/ingest/use-irresponsibly ANY sort of drug. Jombo's little rant seem to differentiate between alcohol and OTHER drugs, as alcohol is a more socially acceptable drug. I say coke or booze, makes no difference, if you fuck up when your high and get busted (go to jail) I have no sympathy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by InThrees:
Notice how Jimbo didn't include 'murderers' in his sarcastic little tirade there.

---

Yes, I noticed.
Has anyone ever been assaulted, robbed, or murdered in the name of acquiring drugs?
Is there a greater propensity to execute bad judgment when high? Are the majority of murders committed by people who are high?

quote:

---

Originally posted by InThrees:

Someone who buys and smokes 10 grams or so of cannabis a week... (or more, or less) JUST ISN'T A CRIMINAL.

---

Humm...
Last time I checked, it was a violation of law (crime) to buy/sell/ingest dope (cannabis) in the 50 states. So when one buys/sells/consumes dope, one IS committing a crime. When one is arrested and convicted for buying/selling/ingesting dope, one IS a criminal. (in the 50 states).

quote:

---

Originally posted by InThrees:

Drinking alcohol isn't a crime. However, notice the distinction here: Drinking alcohol to excess, losing control of yourself, and causing harm to another person or property IS a crime.

---

No argument from me here.
However, Do you believe there are any inmates arrested/convicted for drinking responsibly?
Obviously, that is not the issue.

ISSUE:
If one uses any DRUG irresponsibly, do something stupid, get arrested and convicted,
don't bitch about unfair drug laws. It's irrelevant weather or not YOU AGREE with the laws, if you get caught, you go to jail.
If one finds these laws completely unpalatable one should become politically active to CHANGE the laws. The laws are after all conceived OF the people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by InThrees:

So what, exactly, is different about ANY other drug? I know people who can do an 8 ball in a night and still maintain their 4.0 fucking GPA. Without killing people, or causing bodily harm, or even being politically incorrect in social situations.

---

In my previous post did I not classify ALL drugs into one group. "dope is dope, weather it's from a doctor, street corner, or booze store"?

As for being "politically correct", I don't understand your point, does that mean these persons get along with others when their high? Not the issue. My point is if your high and screw up don't whine about being in prison.

quote:

---

Originally posted by InThrees:

Your problem with this is... what exactly?

---

No problem. Just illustrating a different perspective. As I said above, no one should tell me what to put in my body. But IF I choose to use illegal substances, I do it with discretion and I exercise caution not to get caught. Do I think the current drug laws make sense? No.
When I was busted in California for .25oz of dope in 1980 did I curse the laws? No. I cursed myself for being so f'ing stupid.

BYW, the plea bargain issues? I think it IS used far too frequently.

-Marcel

posted 08-27-2001 13:22            

quote:

---

There seems to be a common disregard in this thread for the many VICTIMS of crimes.

---

Nope, this thread is ALL ABOUT victims, the primary example being Charles Fain, who had 18 years of his life stolen from him.

"At least 96 people have been exonerated and freed from death rows in 22 states since the death penalty was reinstated in 1973." That's not, "let out on a technicality," that's "exonerated", as in, proven to not be guilty. Who are the perps in these crimes? Ignorant assholes who trample the innocent in their blind search for a target to extract vengence from - until they find themselves trampled upon.

posted 08-27-2001 14:15            

Here it is (they are), devoid of all sarcasm or any other possibly distracting nuances:

1. Drugs don't cause violence. Violent PEOPLE tend to get into drug trafficking, because - since drug trafficking is ILLEGAL - thugs do better at it than legitimate businessmen.

2. Drugs don't cause people to become burnouts. Burnouts do drugs because they're a way to escape the world that the burnout just can't cope with.

3. Making drugs (more) illegal won't stop "drug-related violence" - the violence is something inherent in a black market. The "War on Drugs" actually makes drug trafficking a more violent situation, because it ups the ante on how hardcore a thug you need to be to succeed / to be willing to risk it.

4. Making drugs (more) illegal won't stop people behaving irresponsibly - drugs don't "make" people behave irresponsibly; people who wish to act irresponsible use drugs irresponsibly.

5. Marijuana is vastly safer than either of the two "legal" drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Cocaine's no picnic, but I could easily make a case for it being no worse than either alcohol or tobacco. Same goes for heroin. So why does smoking a joint send you to prison, while drinking a beer makes you a smiling billboard icon?

6. The Law Is An Ass. It is EXTREMELY counterproductive to throw people in jail for "drug related offenses" which involve no-one hurting anyone else. Doing so, again, ENCOURAGES violent behavior in drug traffickers.

7. More than a million Americans were laudanum (opium) users in the early nineteenth century - and didn't hurt a soul in the doing of it. Then we passed a law, and overnight they turned into "dangerous junkies." Wtf?