Talk:Overturned convictions in the United States

Split?

Would it be possible to split this article into "Overturned Convictions in the US" and "Disputed Convictions in US" or something like that? I'm glad the article was not deleted, but it seems to me this is a necessary distinction. The article on Disputed Convictions might also include general info on why convictions come to be disputed (ie problems of eyewitness testimony, evidence tamporing, racial profiling). Fixer1234 20:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought I would move the article to "Convicted persons in the United States" and begin adding people whose convictions are obviously not wrongful. (This title was the article’s original title, but someone moved it to “Wrongfully convicted,” because I had not yet added any legitimately convicted people. This article may end up being too long as there are hundreds of legitimately convicted people that have Wikipedia articles associated with them. Perhaps the article will need to be split on a geographical basis.

I like the idea of having wrongful convictions listed separately, even if they are split up into two articles like overturned and disputed. However, as for myself, I will see how the renamed article fares, before deciding or beginning anything with a separate listing. There is an article named Miscarriage of justice that contains some information on why convictions come to be disputed. --Danras 02:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is even worse than it was before. "Convicted persons in the United States" would be preposterously long and unmanageable. Per the AFD discussions, I'm renaming and removing the disputed convictions. Tufflaw 04:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The article had not reached the size that Wikipedia warns as being overly lengthy. Besides there are many articles that exceed this size. If it becomes too long, sections can be split into separate articles such as Convicted Persons in California, or in Texas, with a link to such articles. I do not object to a separate article for overturned convictions, but some may flag it as being redundant. There may not be hundreds of notable convictions to add, perhaps only a hundred convicted persons that have articles associated with them. I get the impression that there are a lot of articles about politicians who have been convicted of petty offenses. I question if these would be notable enough to add.

Renaming the article "Convicted persons in the United States," solves the dispute brought up in the AfD discussions. I am reverting the move and restoring the disputed convictions. --Danras 15:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Article title

I am unhappy with the series of moves of this article without full discussion. The consensus at AfD was that an article about those who had been wrongly convincted should exist but there were issues about the title. An article about all people convicted in the US would be unmanagable- Wikipedia is not a directory. I have move protected the article pending a consensus that this article should be renamed. Note that Wikipedia should not be making our own judgment about the validity of convictions. WjBscribe 21:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts or suggestions from anyone? I think the current title "Overturned convictions in the United States" is NPOV and adequately addresses the concerns raised during the AfD. Tufflaw 00:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with "overturned convictions". Nobody can debate whether a conviction has been overturned or not, and it excludes folks who are in prison but are believed to be innocent, which was previously a problem. YechielMan 00:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, "Overturned convictions" is good and a NPOV. Also, any convictions not overturned shouldn't be in the article (like any entries that say people "believe" the person was wrongly convicted, but are still in jail). TJ Spyke 01:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to go back to the study I cited in the AFD, which chose four classes of people as "wrongful convictions" (a term I prefer, but won't disruptively fight for):

• a new trial was granted and the defendant was acquitted;
• a pardon was granted due to new evidence;
• innocence was established on the basis of overwhelming evidence (and the defendant was freed);
• appellate court review proved innocence.

Now, I'm uncertain without the full study what the third criterion precisely means. The second criterion is obviously a different list entirely, e.g. List of people pardoned by a United States president. The phrase "overturned conviction" could apply to both the first and the second. (In any case, my thinking on the article (outside of titling) is that it should be organized along types of rulings rather than geographically.) The issue I'm getting at is that "overturned conviction" remains an ambiguity, because generally only the specific conviction before the court is the subject of an overturn and/or remand. In some cases a prosecutor declines a new trial, in others the appellate court precludes that. So we should try to decide what the scope is. As it is, I think "overturned convictions" is not definitive enough, unless there is further limitation of the scope. --Dhartung | Talk 05:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a mild preference for Dhartung's position as long as we clearly specify our definition of a "wrongful conviction" (with cites) in the lead. Otherwise, we'll be back where we started. I do not object to "overturned convictions" either though, but again, I think we would need to specify our definition (again with some sort of citations, so it's obvious that we're not making up arbitrary definitions). I do object to the original "wrongly convicted", as it's not a commonly used term nor a very precise one. As for limiting the scope (perhaps to notable cases) or splitting the article, I have no strong preferences, but don't think it's an immediate issue. The first order of business should be pruning all the merely-disputed convictions from the list, which will make the list a lot shorter. Xtifr _tälk 09:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the article title should be changed to “Wrongful convictions in the United States” with an intro or an understanding that it only includes legally exonerated people. Technically the convictions of pardoned people are not overturned as overturning is a judicial process. Also people against whom there is much evidence of guilt sometimes get their convictions overturned for procedural trial errors. They generally would not be considered to be legally exonerated until charges were dropped or they were acquitted during a retrial. The title should follow the convention established by the paired categories [Category:Wrongfully convicted people] and [Category:Disputed convictions].

I do not think anyone objects, so I will be establishing Disputed convictions in the United States to contain the disputed convictions of people who have not been legally exonerated. --Danras 13:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I do object Tufflaw 15:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• The cases presented in the article are a mish-mosh of (a) people who were factually innocent being convicted; (b) people whose convictions were overturned later for unspecified reasons (it's hard to tell what's going on without any citations here, one has to plumb the link articles) - including those in which a retrial is pending; and (c) people pardoned (which usually means you were guilty but the sentence or stain of conviction is removed).

So, if the title now is "Overturned convictions ..." let's keep the article to that which fits: (a) pardons are not overturned convictions, they should be removed; (b) innocent people being convicted don't belong unless the conviction was in fact overturned (hardly likely after a hanging, because all appeals are done). As best I can fathom, in the U.S. convictions are overturned only on appeal or on collateral attack (habeus corpus); a trial court's change of verdict - like substituting innocent or insane for guilty - is not an "overturning" of the conviction. Since nearly all appeals and collateral attacks leave open the possibility of retrial, and re-conviction, any (notable) person who wins an intermediate appeal could belong on the list regardless of ultimate guilt or innocence either legally or factually. Take Oliver North for example: his conviction was overturned by the court of appeals and he was never retried. Doesn't he belong on the list? His conviction was in fact overturned not because he was factually innocent but because of errors in the trial court. Ditto Claus von Bülow, who was acquitted at his retrial. Ditto Max Soffar on death row; his first conviction was overturned because his lawyer slept through the trial, but alas was convicted a second time and sits in jail. And what of Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks and others convicted under Jim Crow laws that are now repealed or held to be unconstitutional?

Carlossuarez46 18:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Split not possible

I agreed to a split as was suggested by some in the AfD discussion. Nevertheless, I have to reverse myself as Tufflaw is making a split impossible by gathering four votes already to delete the disputed convictions part of the split. I want the article restored to its status when it survived a deletion vote. --Danras 20:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Even many of those who voted Keep agreed that "disputed" convictions were inappropriate. They're inappropriate in this article, and inappropriate in their own article. Additionally, I haven't "gathered" any votes, I posted an AfD. People can vote however they wish. I'm trying to assume good faith, but it's becoming more and more apparent by your edit history that you have some sort of an agenda that you're trying to push onto this encyclopedia. Tufflaw 21:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In the AfD vote some suggested the article be split into legally exonerated convictions and those that are not. You know what they said. Yet because the first vote at deletion/censorship failed, you saw an opportunity to get a second crack at censorship. You claim to have acted in good faith. You say I have some sort of agenda, but what is it? Is an open non-censorship position an agenda? If this article is restored to its post vote status as an article on wrongful convictions, you are free to dispute the wrongfulness of individual convictions. You apparently are against anyone being allowed to dispute convictions. Jesus was wrongfully convicted and never legally exonerated, but you feel Wikipedia should not tolerate any implied criticism of lawful authority. --Danras 08:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Jesus was not convicted in the United States, unless I missed something in Sunday School. And, depending on what one's religious beliefs are, he (or "He") may well have been guilty of blasphemy (one of the charges against him/Him). I assume that this article is not about "unfair" trials, "unjust" trials, or just ones with outcomes we don't like or trust. Otherwise it's a POV morass. Carlossuarez46 00:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I know where Jesus lived. Some of the Jewish officials wanted to convict him of blasphemy but they did not have the authority to put him to death on that charge. I cited Jesus mainly for the censorship aspect in that many would be against censoring Jesus. You probably have a point in that it is not rigorously clear what Jesus was convicted of.

This article is not about unfair or unjust trials. It is about people who are convicted or remain convicted against the weight of the evidence. You badmouth others' intellectual abilities. Instead of relying on Wikipedian consensus about cases, you prefer to rely on the opinion of juries who generally have lower IQs, had more reason to feel emotional or biased about their cases, and who made their decision while ignorant of any facts that may come to light after a conviction.

Social determinations can be inexact. You want to blindly believe that government determinations are somehow infallible and not dependant on social determination. Most of the wrongful but unexonerated convictions on Wikipedia are not close calls. If a person is convicted of murder, and remains unexonerated after the victim is found alive, you would refuse to include that person as wrongfully convicted. If you did include him, you would make an exception to your blind belief. Once you made one exception you would have to make other exceptions for convictions that are perhaps not as blatantly wrong, but are far from close calls. Soon you would have to give up any semblance of blind belief and judge by the evidence.

A retarded person could do better than you in determining wrongful convictions, by citing the most obvious but unexonerated wrongful convictions. Your argument then has no intellectual merit, but is only an expression of your desire to censor. --Danras 04:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Your lack of Civility is shocking. At WP we must rely on sources, like accounts of trials and jury verdicts. I am surprised that you didn't know that; WP doesn't second guess jury verdicts (regardless of what your opinion of their IQs). Other sources may second guess those verdicts, and WP can cite to those. WP sources hardly take the position that governmental determinations are infallible; WP sources are the "evidence" on which WP relies. If the purported murder victim is reported to still be alive, why wouldn't a court overturn the conviction? If not, why not? Maybe the court was not convinced that the victim really is alive. Sometimes, society finds itself debating whether someone is alive or dead for some time (Jimmy Hoffa, Amelia Earhart, even Elvis or JFK by some conspiracy hounds). If we cannot have a clear delineation of "overturned" rather than an opinion like "wrongful", we have a mess: your dead victims showing up alive get mixed in with Scott Peterson, Mumia, and anyone else who says they are innocent, which would not be a particular useful list. Carlossuarez46 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of discussion is generally to point out errors or fallacious reasoning. It may lead to hurt feelings. For the record, I do not think you are unintelligent. I think you are unfamiliar with the details of actual cases and are arguing on the basis of what you imagine them to be. Also, you seem to be “playing dumb.” I felt bad about using the term “retarded” in regard to actually retarded people. However, many of the wrongly convicted including the Choctaw Three, Barry Lee Fairchild, and Earl Washington are reportedly retarded and were convicted because they had confessions coerced out of them by smarter people. I am defending the need for civility towards them, against your apparent lack of civility.

While WP relies on sources, it generally requires that reasonable inferences be made. Most articles rely on copyrighted sources and WP forbids the plagiarism of copyrighted material. There is no way that article writers can avoid making inferences unless they write articles that are verbatim transcriptions of their sources. In disputing inferences, I think you need to show that an average person would find them unreasonable.

Charles Hudspeth was convicted of murdering George Watkins. After Watkins was found alive, Hudspeth’s conviction was never overturned. You ask why a court would not have overturned such a conviction if the murder victim were really alive. Courts, however, do not overturn convictions without being asked. Hudspeth could not have asked as he was hanged six months year before Watkins was located. A similar fate befell William Jackson Marion. The state governor happened to pardon him on the 100th anniversary of his hanging, but such posthumous pardons are not required and are based on political whim.

Wrongful convictions are often proven by absence of evidence rather than proof of innocence. Gary Dotson was convicted of rape based on the testimony of his alleged victim. After his victim recanted, there would be no reason to consider his conviction valid. The state refused to exonerate him, even though at that point there was zero evidence against him. The Chicago public supported Dotson. They were quite capable of inferring a wrongful conviction against the opposition of the state. Years later, the state eventually exonerated Dotson, but only because of the new science of DNA testing. In another high-profile case, the Milwaukee public supported Lawrencia Bembenek. They, too, were capable inferring a wrongful conviction despite state opposition.

I reviewed Mumia’s case and while I agree he had an unfair trial, I would not include him among the wrongly convicted. Mumia would do better if he had a story about shooting the victim cop in self-defense after the cop first shot him. However, Mumia remains silent. I thought Scott Peterson was guilty at the time of his trial, at least that was the impression I got from the press. However, some guy emailed me, that he was wrongly convicted. I wondered if the guy was crazy, but I visited some web sites and came to the same conclusion. I believe there is a timeline problem. I am not an expert on Scott Peterson and would be open to an evidence-based dispute. A book entitled Presumed Guilty reportedly details why he was wrongly convicted.

I think you and a few others vastly overrate the number of people who have supporters willing to propel a case for wrongful conviction when the evidence is dubious. Mumia was a black activist and has support of some radical groups, but the only similar person I can think of is Leonard Peltier, an AIM activist. The evidence in his case is not, however, dubious. To propel a case for innocence, a dubiously convicted person needs supporters who believe that he was convicted as part of a conspiracy against their group.

There are few conspiracy believers in the U.S. or radical groups that support such belief. Mumia is much more popular in Europe where radical groups are common. There are individual frame-ups in the U.S., but those who perpetrate them avoid targeting any group and seek out loners who will not arouse public sympathy or support. Perhaps your argument would make sense for wrongful convictions in counties outside the U.S. I think that you believe a “conspiracy” of conspiracy believers is at the gates who will promote dubious convictions unless you rally public paranoia against such a feared foe. --Danras 12:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Leo Frank

The Pardon of 1986 said it did not address the question of guilt or innocence. Frank should not appear in an article that implies he was innocent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.48.136 (talk) 11:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sacco and Vanzetti

Sacco and Vanzetti are included in the list. Dukakis's remark did not claim that they were innocent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.10.231 (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)