Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Innocence, compensation, and past crimes: Does parole revocation from a false conviction trigger compensation?

If a parolee is falsely accused and convicted of a heinous crime then later exonerated by DNA, should the state's compensation statute pay them for time served on the original sentence due to the subsequent (later disproven) parole violation? So, for example, if I'm on parole for theft with 8 years to go, am falsely accused of rape and murder, then proven innocent by DNA 25 years later, should I be compensated for 25 or 17 years wrongful incarceration? Your opinion and mine don't matter nearly as much as the nine members of the Supreme Court of Texas, who last week heard oral arguments in a case of first impression and will soon decide the question. See Chuck Lindell's excellent coverage in the Austin Statesman from over the weekend.

We'll see what the SCOT says, but I was under the impression this question was settled after the compensation decisions surrounding the Tulia episode, which were debated at oral argument, reports Lindell:
Complicating the comptroller's case is an attorney general's opinion related to the 1999 Tulia drug sweep, a botched affair that prompted Gov. Rick Perry to pardon 35 people whose convictions were tainted by misconduct by a prosecutor and an unsupervised undercover investigator.

One of those pardoned ended up serving concurrent prison sentences when his probation on an unrelated drug charge was revoked. Asked in 2007 whether the man could still receive state compensation for wrongful imprisonment, Abbott's office said yes.

During oral arguments, several Supreme Court justices asked about the apparent discrepancy between giving state money to somebody who was on probation but not somebody on parole.

"Both probation and parole are forms of conditional release, that is true, but it is not proper to say the two are the same," Lionberger responded.

"When someone receives a probated sentence, they don't actually serve a sentence. (The sentence) is probated; it is postponed," he said. "If you complete your probation, you will not have ever suffered a criminal sentence."

Parole, however, is offered to people who are serving a prison sentence, Lionberger said. Their sentences continue even after they're freed, he said, with custody simply transferring from the institutional division to the parole division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

A round of skeptical questions followed.
Lindell also included this tidbit on the number of exonerees who've received compensation under the new statute passed last session:
Texas has paid $42.4 million* to 16 exonerated inmates since state law changed Sept. 1, 2009, to increase compensation for wrongful convictions.

Compensation was cut a total of $4.16 million* for five of those inmates because of prior convictions.

*Includes a lump-sum payment and a matching annuity.

Source: Texas comptroller's office
Since the $42.4 million figure includes future annuities, the state has really so far only paid out a little over half that sum.

2 comments:

Soronel Haetir said...

I would think whatever time the person actually spent in prison that they would not have but for the false conviction should be compensable. I would say that it is the fact of wrongful incarceration, rather than the genesis of that imprisonment, that produces the injury to be remedied.

I would also say, however, that when it comes to parole revocation that you need to be very careful that the person actually was in complete compliance with the terms of release. Even if a particular violation would not normally result in the re-imposition of the entire remaining sentence I would deny compensation to a parolee who was in violation of their parole terms in any way at the time of re-incarceration. So the person might not have committed the rape but they may still have been associating with felons or using drugs or not making all of their meetings, I would say any of those would be enough to ethically prevent compensation (I am not familiar with the terms of the Texas statute, so have no comment on what outcome the law should require).

rodsmith said...

lol this guy is an idiot!

"During oral arguments, several Supreme Court justices asked about the apparent discrepancy between giving state money to somebody who was on probation but not somebody on parole.

"Both probation and parole are forms of conditional release, that is true, but it is not proper to say the two are the same," Lionberger responded.

"When someone receives a probated sentence, they don't actually serve a sentence. (The sentence) is probated; it is postponed," he said. "If you complete your probation, you will not have ever suffered a criminal sentence."

and soronel sorry if the individual is doing an ILLEGAL probation then YES they should get same thing anyone else got.

If they got 8 years probation for the crime they didn't commit they get paid for the 8 years! what happned after that is immaterial.