Innocent man spent 15 years in prison because he refused to admit guilt

[rambone]

Its sad to think that admitting guilt gets people less prison time than people who stand by their innocence.

Peterson found factually innocent of child molestation after 15-year term

Kevin Peterson served the full 15 years of a one- to 15-year prison term for child molestation because he refused to admit guilt to the state Board of Pardons.

“He just wanted people to know he was innocent,” said Peterson's lawyer.

Peterson, 54, formerly of West Haven, now an Ogden truck driver, was sent to prison in early 1993 on charges alleging sexual contact short of rape. He moved back to the Ogden area when he was released from prison in November 2007.

Peterson’s lawsuit includes sworn affidavits from his two children, who say they were coerced by their mother and stepfather to tell authorities their father sexually molested them. The son and daughter were 11 and 9 at the time.

Peterson pleaded no contest to the second-degree felony charges, meaning he denied guilt but couldn’t defeat the state’s evidence.

 

[dross]

I want to disagree with you because, well, you're you, but I'm afraid I have to agree that continuing to express your innocence shouldn't be held against you.

 

[K_W]

I too have found myself siding with Rambone twice this week.

 

[rambone]

I want to disagree with you because, well, you're you, but I'm afraid I have to agree that continuing to express your innocence shouldn't be held against you.

I actually thought you would enjoy this as I was posted it. I agree with you on a lot of things, just not so much on foreign policy and establishment politics.

 

[rambone]

I too have found myself siding with Rambone twice this week.

I need to stir the pot a little harder then.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I find it interesting that the two culprits likely will skate on account of the statute of limitations.

 

[rambone]

Here's an unrelated story of a prosecutor who made a pass-time out of sending innocent people to prison for child molestation. Of 26 convictions, 25 were reversed, and I believe the remaining guy died in prison.

Ed Jagels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ATOMonkey]

The whole "admit your guilt and we'll go easy on you," is often times a trap. I have personally seen this backfire BIG TIME.

The judge basically called the defendant a liar, because he recanted, and told the defendant that he couldn't believe a word he said. Not only was the original sentence upheld, but parole was denied as well.

This was after the prosecution "promised" that the judge would reduce the sentence or advocate for early parole.

liars...

 

[IndyDave1776]

Personally, I believe that people who can be proven to have willfully made false accusations of crime, police who have willfully arrested and accused people they know to be innocent or to whom they apply 'evidence' that they manufactured, and prosecutors who prosecute people they know to be innocent should be subjected to the maximum sentence available for the crimes they falsely subjected someone else to prosecution for committing. It would stop this type of nonsense in a big hurry.

 

[daddymikey1975]

Personally, I believe that people who can be proven to have willfully made false accusations of crime, police who have willfully arrested and accused people they know to be innocent or to whom they apply 'evidence' that they manufactured, and prosecutors who prosecute people they know to be innocent should be subjected to the maximum sentence available for the crimes they falsely subjected someone else to prosecution for committing. It would stop this type of nonsense in a big hurry.

^ This.

 

[Glocker 400]

Personally, I believe that people who can be proven to have willfully made false accusations of crime, police who have willfully arrested and accused people they know to be innocent or to whom they apply 'evidence' that they manufactured, and prosecutors who prosecute people they know to be innocent should be subjected to the maximum sentence available for the crimes they falsely subjected someone else to prosecution for committing. It would stop this type of nonsense in a big hurry.

A nice thought, but the problem in most child molesting cases is that the only evidence is the child's word. Physical evidence is rare, as there is usually a delay in reporting and no injury. There is no practical way to prove that a police officer or prosecutor "knew" anything other than the word of the victim. At least, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Sexual assault cases involving children are rarely cut and dried. The only recourse would be to refuse to prosecute child molesters without physical evidence (something more than he said/she said), and that's not gonna happen.

 

[IndyDave1776]

A nice thought, but the problem in most child molesting cases is that the only evidence is the child's word. Physical evidence is rare, as there is usually a delay in reporting and no injury. There is no practical way to prove that a police officer or prosecutor "knew" anything other than the word of the victim. At least, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Sexual assault cases involving children are rarely cut and dried. The only recourse would be to refuse to prosecute child molesters without physical evidence (something more than he said/she said), and that's not gonna happen.

I didn't intend to suggest that it should be easy, but I have a problem with people being subjected to prosecution under circumstances in which accusation almost always equals a guilty verdict regardless of truth. You may recall that one the more infamous cases of this happened with a day care in which the 'investigators' kept questioning the children repetitively and planting ideas until they eventually convinced them that bad things happen and then screamed 'believe the children!' when they were unwilling to do that until after then convinced the children to say what they wanted to hear. While this subject came up with the charge of molestation, I believe that principle should be applied regardless of the crime. It should not be legal to make a deliberate effort to ruin the rest of someone's life for nefarious reasons and if caught be able to say 'oops' and walk away.

 

[mrjarrell]

A nice thought, but the problem in most child molesting cases is that the only evidence is the child's word. Physical evidence is rare, as there is usually a delay in reporting and no injury. There is no practical way to prove that a police officer or prosecutor "knew" anything other than the word of the victim. At least, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Sexual assault cases involving children are rarely cut and dried. The only recourse would be to refuse to prosecute child molesters without physical evidence (something more than he said/she said), and that's not gonna happen.

Oh, there have been cases where cops and prosecutors have willfully gone after people and screwed with the evidence.
They should have all immunities removed and suffer the maximum punishment for their crimes.

McMartin preschool trial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Glocker 400]

Oh, there have been cases where cops and prosecutors have willfully gone after people and screwed with the evidence.
They should have all immunities removed and suffer the maximum punishment for their crimes.

McMartin preschool trial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know, and I agree with you. But there are also times when everyone believes the defendant is guilty, only to find years later through new evidence that he wasn't. I'm quite sure that there is more than one person sitting in prison because a jury put him there based on something other than stellar evidence. It's not so easy to prove intentional malicious prosecution.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I know, and I agree with you. But there are also times when everyone believes the defendant is guilty, only to find years later through new evidence that he wasn't. I'm quite sure that there is more than one person sitting in prison because a jury put him there based on something other than stellar evidence. It's not so easy to prove intentional malicious prosecution.

It isn't necessarily easy to prove, but when it can be proven the guilty parties need to be punished severely enough that the next ethically bankrupt witness, cop, or prosecutor concludes that it just isn't worth it.

 

[jve153]

Kind of like stiffer punishments for violent crimes vs going after inanimate objects. Would never work. This makes too much sense. Gotta try something else.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Personally, I believe that people who can be proven to have willfully made false accusations of crime, police who have willfully arrested and accused people they know to be innocent or to whom they apply 'evidence' that they manufactured, and prosecutors who prosecute people they know to be innocent should be subjected to the maximum sentence available for the crimes they falsely subjected someone else to prosecution for committing. It would stop this type of nonsense in a big hurry.

This is also why I do not believe in the one size fits all exclusionary rule forced on the states by the Supreme Court for violations of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. Officers can willfully and intentionally violate constitutional rights and the only repercussion is that the evidence is excluded from being used against the defendant. Keep in mind that this is a made up rule by the Supreme Court and it can be found nowhere in the Constitution.

It doesn't matter whether or not a murderer or a rapist gets off the hook. There also isn't any punishment for the police officer unless the county or city he is employed by decides to take action. There should be actual jail time so that the police officer is punished and not the victim of the crime.

 

[ATOMonkey]

The other problem is that most juries go into the courtroom looking for blood.

People, by nature, are a very vindictive bunch and want to see someone swing when a crime is committed. Who isn't necessarily important to them.

In MOST criminal cases, you could try just about anybody, because the prosecution's case is based almost entirely on circumstantial evidence.

Since a prosecutor's worth is tied to how many people he can put in jail, you end up with a system where innocent men are invariably incarcerated.

 

[NYFelon]

The other problem is that most juries go into the courtroom looking for blood.

People, by nature, are a very vindictive bunch and want to see someone swing when a crime is committed. Who isn't necessarily important to them.

In MOST criminal cases, you could try just about anybody, because the prosecution's case is based almost entirely on circumstantial evidence.

Since a prosecutor's worth is tied to how many people he can put in jail, you end up with a system where innocent men are invariably incarcerated.

quoted for poignancy

 

[IndyDave1776]

quoted for poignancy

I second this motion! ATOMonkey is absolutely correct that there is much more effort placed in putting heads on pikes than there is verifying that those heads are in fact guilty.