Man exonerated from prison after 35 years..

[Louis VI the Fat]

Fla. man exonerated after 35 years behind bars

• Slideshow:Fla. man exonerated after 35 years in prison

BARTOW, Fla. – James Bain used a cell phone for the first time Thursday, calling his elderly mother to tell her he had been freed after 35 years behind bars for a crime he did not commit.
Mobile devices didn't exist in 1974, the year he was sentenced to life in prison for kidnapping a 9-year-old boy and raping him in a nearby field.
Neither did the sophisticated DNA testing that officials more recently used to determine he could not have been the rapist.


"Nothing can replace the years Jamie has lost," said Seth Miller, a lawyer for the Florida Innocence Project, which helped Bain win freedom. "Today is a day of renewal."

As Bain walked out of the Polk County courthouse Thursday, wearing a black T-shirt that said "not guilty," he spoke of his deep faith and said he does not harbor any anger.
"No, I'm not angry," he said. "Because I've got God."
The 54-year-old said he looks forward to eating fried turkey and drinking Dr Pepper. He said he also hopes to go back to school.


Friends and family surrounded him as he left the courthouse after Judge James Yancey ordered him freed. His 77-year-old mother, who is in poor health, preferred to wait for him at home. With a broad smile, he said he looks forward to spending time with her and the rest of his family.

I feel really happy for him, but mostly just sad. That poor mother too. Half her life her son was officially a child rapist, locked in jail. Must've been heartbraking. His sister too - she was with him on the night of the rape, the court did not believe her story. Very frustrating.

Florida last year passed a law that automatically grants former inmates found innocent $50,000 for each year they spent in prison. No legislative approval is needed. That means Bain is entitled to $1.75 million.

Bless the american legal system and its generous use of cash as a means of redressing wrong. At least it's something.

$50.000 is a fine sum for many people, for a lost year. Halfway through the article I started to worry what should become of this man, who has not even had the chance to finifh school. Was he to live in poverty for the remainder of his life as well, to add insult to injury? I was quite pleased to read he receives this substantial sum of money.

But no amount of money can compensate for what is mostly a lost life. $50.00 a year is never a compensation for 35 years. Age 19 to 54 in jail, that is too long. No wife, no kids, no career, no school. No 'normal' friends, routine, experiences. A stolen life.

Bain spent more time in prison than any of the 246 inmates previously exonerated by DNA evidence nationwide, according to the project. The longest-serving before him was James Lee Woodard of Dallas, who was released last year after spending more than 27 years in prison for a murder he did not commit.

"I wish we had had that evidence back when we were prosecuting cases. I'm ecstatic the man has been released," said Threadgill, now a 77-year-old retired appeals court judge. "The whole system is set up to keep that from happening. It failed."

Eric Ferrero, spokesman for the Innocence Project, said a DNA profile can be extracted from decades-old evidence if it has been preserved properly. That means sealed in a bag and stored in a climate-controlled place, which is how most evidence is handled as a matter of routine.

The project has a bigger problem with lost or destroyed evidence than getting usable DNA profiles from existing evidence, he said.

Oh dear...

246 people been exonerated by this new DNA evidence project. The tip of the iceberg. There has to be DNA evidence available about the crime, it has to have been stored and well kept, it has have to been investigated. Well in the (tens of?) thousands of persons must be in gaol innocently.

[Cute Wolf]

Sigh.... that's happened because judges and all judicial systems seems to have irrational rage when it comes to "sexual abuse on child" kind of crime.... they will try to get most of the people statisfied with their rage, and try to present themself as "heroes that punish those criminals", at the cost of innocent man that must put behind the bars for something he didn't commit.....

[Crazed Rabbit]

As Bain walked out of the Polk County courthouse Thursday, wearing a black T-shirt that said "not guilty," he spoke of his deep faith and said he does not harbor any anger.
"No, I'm not angry," he said. "Because I've got God."

Damn, that is one noble and forgiving man.

CR

[Kadagar_AV]

I would be rather angry...

But then, I don't have the same strong belief as this man... It obviosly helped him.

Truly sad story though, and yes, tip of the iceberg...

[Megas Methuselah]

Wow. The man's life was truly stolen from him. No amount of money can ever make up for those lost years.

[Fragony]

Sad story, but I prefer one sad story over many sad story's. Good for him.

[KukriKhan]

Good for James Bain. The DNA project has been a good idea from its inception.

Thoughts to ponder: IF there are thousands of guys imprisoned for crimes they did not commit, those crimes were still committed by someone else, who is presumeably still free. Sure, we can now prove that Bain didn't do it. But someone did, and the kidnapped & raped 9 year old boy - now around 40 years old - was just as kidnapped and raped, only now with no justice served.

[Kadagar_AV]

Good for James Bain. The DNA project has been a good idea from its inception.

Thoughts to ponder: IF there are thousands of guys imprisoned for crimes they did not commit, those crimes were still committed by someone else, who is presumeably still free. Sure, we can now prove that Bain didn't do it. But someone did, and the kidnapped & raped 9 year old boy - now around 40 years old - was just as kidnapped and raped, only now with no justice served.

Odds are the real assaulter got caught later on, and now serves time.

I dunno about the rest of you...

It's a tricky question though... Where do you draw the line?

Is it better to have 10 criminals not found guilty, than to have one unguilty sent to jail? I mean, in a perfect world the justice system would work and the question would be irrelevant. However, clearly misstakes happens, and then the question is if we should be more prone to find people guilty or unguilty.

[HoreTore]

It's better to let a thousand guilty men walk than imprison an innocent man. Two wrongs does not make a right, no matter how hard you try.

This case is just another reason why I'm extremely happy I live in a country with sane prison sentences. Had this guy been Norwegian, he wouldn't have lost more than 10 years or so perhaps, which would've meant a free man at the age of 29.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It's better to let a thousand guilty men walk than imprison an innocent man. Two wrongs does not make a right, no matter how hard you try.

This case is just another reason why I'm extremely happy I live in a country with sane prison sentences. Had this guy been Norwegian, he wouldn't have lost more than 10 years or so perhaps, which would've meant a free man at the age of 29.

Do you think child rapists just give up and don't reoffend?

CR

[HoreTore]

Do you think child rapists just give up and don't reoffend?

Treatment.

We also have a system that allows people with a risk to reoffend to be kept in jail longer than their prison sentence, in fact for the rest of their lives if they are not considered rehabilitated.

[Prince Cobra]

Dear proponents of the death penalty... I want to see your faces now.

Nice there is finally a justice.

Mistakes happen but it is good if they can be corrected.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Treatment.

We also have a system that allows people with a risk to reoffend to be kept in jail longer than their prison sentence, in fact for the rest of their lives if they are not considered rehabilitated.

Ah, so you can simply keep them in prison longer then they were sentenced by law - indefinitely - if one person or a couple of people feel they might be a danger?

That doesn't comfort me. People should only be kept in jail as long as they are sentenced. If you want them in jail longer, write longer sentencing laws. It isn't right for people to be kept in jail past their time. Their punishment should be decided in a courtroom during their trial and not changed in the future.

Treatment.

I don't like gambling over lives with bad odds.

CR

[Centurion1]

we should celebrate for this man. yeas it is terrible what happened and sad that he had to deal with this but at least he was found innocent. im happy that at least he can have some comfort in his life before he dies and hope he lives to 120.

[Reverend Joe]

Jesus, I can't get over this guy's age. Imprisoned at 19? Think about it -- he was wrongly imprisoned for the entirety of the prime of his life. At an age when most men have had the opportunity to live out their whole lifetimes and secure their future and do everything possible to secure their children's future, his life is just starting.

@HoreTore: I think the tragedy here is seeing an innocent man's life ruined, and I do agree that the freedom of an innocent man is more important than enforcing justice. But at the same, I am reticent to agree about letting him loose after just 10 years; a convicted pederast is generally proven to be a repeat offender, and while I haven't heard definitive evidence that treatment doesn't work, I've heard plenty of anecdotal evidence (which is pretty much the best we've got at the moment) that it doesn't. I hate to imprison a man for life because of something that he can't help, but if your sexual desire is fixated on young children, that can't be changed any more than being gay, and it's a hell of a lot more dangerous to society.

Anyway, I do have a confession of my own:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The first thing I thought of when I saw his age and time of imprisonment was, "Damn, think of all the great concerts he missed... he never got to see Foghat perform Fool for the City, or Skynyrd playing Free Bird with Steve Gaines!" I know, it's a bit petty, but honestly, if I was in my 20's during the 70's and spent all that time in jail, I would be pissed.

[ajaxfetish]

Is it better to have 10 criminals not found guilty, than to have one unguilty sent to jail? I mean, in a perfect world the justice system would work and the question would be irrelevant. However, clearly misstakes happens, and then the question is if we should be more prone to find people guilty or unguilty.

I think it better to err on the side of letting a criminal walk, rather than jailing an innocent. If the criminal is not imprisoned, they may ruin another life. If an innocent is imprisoned, I am ruining a life.

Ajax

[Kadagar_AV]

I think it better to err on the side of letting a criminal walk, rather than jailing an innocent. If the criminal is not imprisoned, they may ruin another life. If an innocent is imprisoned, I am ruining a life.

Ajax

A very valid point.

Now, imagine that you let a criminal walk, and he kills two people. Or 3? Or 4? Or.......


Do NOT get me wrong though, I think I am on your side in this debate. But to play the devils...





Ok, so we have someone on trial. We are 99,99% sure it was him who did the crime. And let's face it, the article mentions a number in the HUNDREDS of falsly accused... From how many prisoners???


I think 99,99% is a fair guess...


So anyway... Imagine if a court was 99,99% sure that someone was a murderer, but let him go as they were not a 100% sure. And this person then kills your wife, or your child. Would you agree with the court?


Specially since, and this is a big factor: if he was sentenced, odds are he isnt the best of persons. I mean, it is not like they pick some random guy to imprison.

In most of the cases where the person is not guilty of the actual crime, he has still done enough in his life to be suspected to have done this too...

So, in the majority, vast majority I would think, of cases, the innocent person would have done enough to give him the same sentence, only that the law did not get him then and there.

And please DO bear in mind, that through all these years, this is one of VERY few cases we have heard about it. And do you know the guy? If you dont, how do you know that during the trial, kids were testifying that he had been acted wierd towards them...




Again... I am stating this as much to argue against myself as to argue against you, or anyone else, but I think it is a valid question, and a valid argumentation.


One guy sent to jail who is innocent... versus letting a thousand murderers and rapists loose because you can't be 100% sure?



Where exactly do you draw the line?


PS: I really, really feel sorry for this guy though, and his family. It is a REAL tragedy.

[HoreTore]

Ah, so you can simply keep them in prison longer then they were sentenced by law - indefinitely - if one person or a couple of people feel they might be a danger?

That doesn't comfort me. People should only be kept in jail as long as they are sentenced. If you want them in jail longer, write longer sentencing laws. It isn't right for people to be kept in jail past their time. Their punishment should be decided in a courtroom during their trial and not changed in the future.

The punishment will be decided in a courtroom, and it won't be changed afterwards. It's similar to being sentenced to forced psychiatric treatment. The judge may sentence someone to 10 years in prison or he may sentence him to 10 years "forvaring", which means that if he there's still a high chance of repeating his crime after 10 years, he won't be released yet. That will be decided by phsycologists, the same people you see in any court who are charged with determining whether a person is likely to commit a crime again. It's a rarely used sentence, btw.

Our constitution says that life in prison is 21 years in jail, btw....

I don't like gambling over lives with bad odds.

CR

But you enjoy giving money to child rapists?

[HoreTore]

A very valid point.

Now, imagine that you let a criminal walk, and he kills two people. Or 3? Or 4? Or.......

What if the innocent man you sent to prison was yourself, Kadagar?

Someone may have killed JFK, but sending Lemur to jail for it won't solve anything...

And at any rate, a murderer is actually less likely to kill someone than someone who haven't killed anyone. Serial murderers are much rarer than "regular" murderers.

@Reverend_Joe: If you wish to give your money to pedophiles, be my guest. I would rather give the money to the victims, but whatever.

[Ser Clegane]

And at any rate, a murderer is actually less likely to kill someone than someone who haven't killed anyone.

I cannot quite follow your logic here. Why exactly is somebody who already murdered a person less likely to murder a second person than somebody who never murdered would be to murder for the first time?
Any chance that you can substantiate this claim?

[Reverend Joe]

@Reverend_Joe: If you wish to give your money to pedophiles, be my guest. I would rather give the money to the victims, but whatever.

That's awfully twisted logic there. Imprisoned men are locked in an extremely hostile environment designed to make their lives as unhappy as possible and they have no freedom to do what they want with their lives until the state decides they may be released, if ever. That's not really "giving money" to them, any more than spending money on law enforcement is "giving money" to criminals.

Of course, we could force the prisoners to pay for everything, but that would be awfully anti-Social-Democrat... and an even more appropriate punishment.

[HoreTore]

That's awfully twisted logic there. Imprisoned men are locked in an extremely hostile environment designed to make their lives as unhappy as possible and they have no freedom to do what they want with their lives until the state decides they may be released, if ever. That's not really "giving money" to them, any more than spending money on law enforcement is "giving money" to criminals.

Of course, we could force the prisoners to pay for everything, but that would be awfully anti-Social-Democrat... and an even more appropriate punishment.

Forced labour doesn't work very well unless you do it nazi-style. Can't get anyone to work unless they know they'll get shot if they don't.

Anyway, the cost of having someone imprisoned is extreme. In addition to the wages for the guards, food, etc, you have the prisoners lost yearly production, which would be around 50.000 USD or something? You also have the loss of production from the guards, cooks, construction workers who built the prison, maintenance guys etc who could be producing something else instead, so the cost of having someone in prison is very high.

That's a tax I don't feel like paying. I'd much rather give that money to the victim instead.

[Crazed Rabbit]

That's a tax I don't feel like paying. I'd much rather give that money to the victim instead.

1) The jailed get no pay.

2) And there's likely to be more victims.

And at any rate, a murderer is actually less likely to kill someone than someone who haven't killed anyone.

I'm calling BS on that unless you've got some hard proof.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If it is better to let a 1000 criminals go free than to jail one innocent, then we have to be more than 99.8% sure that someone is guilty...

And obviously you don't want to let 1000 serial killers go free instead of jailing one innocent.

I don't know where arguing about how many criminals vs jailing one innocent will get us though. It seems like a better focus would be on more practical measures like improving the accuracy of the jury system and prison conditions and such.

Cases like this are a strong argument against the death penalty. Fortunately we do use DNA evidence now, but some people are still bound to slip through.

[HoreTore]

1) The jailed get no pay.

2) And there's likely to be more victims.

Ever thought about how much money it costs to keep a man in jail instead of having him take care of himself and add value to society? See my post above.

I'm calling BS on that unless you've got some hard proof.

We have some 50 murders or so each year here. I can't think of more than 3 serial killers, a Swede named Thomas Quick in the 90's, Arfinn Nesset, a nurse/director who killed some 20 elderly patients in the 80's and some woman who poisoned a bunch of people around 1900.

EDIT: a quick google search doesn't reveal anyone else. Arnfinn Nesset has been out of prison for 15 years btw, still no new murders from him....

[Ser Clegane]

We have some 50 murders or so each year here. I can't think of more than 3 serial killers, a Swede named Thomas Quick in the 90's, Arfinn Nesset, a nurse/director who killed some 20 elderly patients in the 80's and some woman who poisoned a bunch of people around 1900.

And now please illustrate how this proves your point

[HoreTore]

And now please illustrate how this proves your point

Not a single person in Norway who has been sentenced for murder has killed again.

Ever.

[Fragony]

Probably because they commited suicide, isn't that uncommon over there

[Ser Clegane]

Not a single person in Norway who has been sentenced for murder has killed again.

Ever.

Actually you only make that point for one out of three (which is an absurdly small sample to be indicative for anything BTW)

Apart from that. This is not about people who are sentenced for murder - but about people who commit murder and are not caught/sentenced.

[HoreTore]

Actually you only make that point for one out of three (which is an absurdly small sample to be indicative for anything BTW)

Uhm, no. Out of every murderer in Norway, only three of them have killed on more than one occasion. Out of every murderer ever sentenced to jail in Norway, no-one has ever killed again.