I'm puzzled: did they actually put five people in jail, even though there was actually one perpetrator?
Convicting the wrong person is one (terrifying) mistake, but making a five-fold mistake in the number of criminals is… incredible.
Convicting the wrong person is one (terrifying) mistake, but making a five-fold mistake in the number of criminals is… incredible.
It's actually a pretty complicated case. I'd recommend reading both the recommendation from Morgenthau to vacate the convictions[1] (which ended up happening) and the Armstrong report[2] (which came to the conclusion that the Central Park Five were most likely involved in the attack). Doctors involved in the case as well as the victim still believe that there were more than one attacker[3] (the victim has no memory of the attack). The only person who's DNA was found there (who wasn't part of the five) is the person who claims that there was only one attacker (he confessed to the crime and made the claim that he was the only attacker after meeting one of the five in prison).
Like I said, the best way to get an idea about the case is to read the two reports. Most of the news articles that cover the story don't do a great job.
[1] http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/wise.pdf [2] https://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Armstrong.pdf [3] https://abcnews.go.com/US/case-settled-1989-central-park-jog...
Are you saying the police found DNA of one or more of the five on the victim?
> The only person who's DNA was found there (who wasn't part of the five) is the person who claims that there was only one attacker (he confessed to the crime and made the claim that he was the only attacker after meeting one of the five in prison).
Should be:
> The only person whose DNA was found there is the person who claims that there was only one attacker (he confessed to the crime and made the claim that he was the only attacker after meeting one of the five in prison).
I would argue that your comments in brackets are also irrelevant, because it appears to be suggesting something for which there is no basis for. In other words, he confessed to the crime, period. And his DNA was found on the victim. So we know he is guilty, period.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/nyregion/new-slant-on-jog...
It is only "radical" as a notion because they are in power - we wouldn't bat an eye at banning gang members from high trust jobs even if they were never convicted of anything - just being part of an organization party to such crimes makes them unworthy of the priveledge. So why treat this bad apple orchard any differently?
1. Expand the CCRB[1], both in number of civilian investigators and their authority to pursue investigations without interference from the mayor/city council/police commissioner. A line has to be drawn somewhere in terms of power granted to an independent review board, but I don't think we've even approached that line yet.
2. Change city/state law to prevent police misconduct settlements from coming out of city coffers. The public shouldn't have to pay twice (or three times, depending on how you look at it) for crimes perpetrated by the police. Settlements should come out of NYC PBA funds, insurance, or some other source that disincentivizes the force as a whole from covering for "bad apples."
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Complaint_Review_Boar...
> The report concluded that the five men whose convictions had been vacated had "most likely" participated in the beating and rape of the jogger and that the "most likely scenario" was that "both the defendants and Reyes assaulted her, perhaps successively."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case#Armst...
Wise, 16, wasn’t a suspect, but he agreed to go with his friend for moral support. He ended up being charged as well
No description of why he would be charged. Clearly a gross miscarriage of justice.
Armstrong report:
In addition, several statements were made by witnesses to officers investigating the incident and by the defendants, speaking outside the formal interrogation process, which directly contradict Reyes’s claim that he acted alone, and evidence the participation of the defendants. They include inculpatory statements by defendants Wise, Richardson and Santana both to police officers and to civilian witnesses who reported the statements to police. Santana and Richardson separately pointed out the location of the rape when brought to Central Park. When Wise was questioned, he made reference to a man named “Rudy” who took the jogger’s Walkman; the description of the jogger’s “Walkman pouch” was similar to Reyes’s description of a “fanny pack.” At the time of this interview, the police had no way of knowing that the jogger had a Walkman or that she carried it in a pouch. Wise also commented on the amount of blood at the spot where the rape occurred. When asked why he was so surprised by the amount of blood, he answered, “I knew she was bleeding but I didn’t know how bad she was. It was really dark. I couldn’t see how much blood there was at night.”
When you tell a story from one side, and one side only...
(I don't mean that it's a good thing to call news orgs "fake news". I mean that if someone is already calling you "fake news", you should really take care to have impeccable reporting to avoid giving those accusations weight)
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/nyregion/new-slant-on-jog...
> Was what happened to the Central Park Five completely wrong, or simply incomplete? I read Sarah Burns’ book, The Central Park Five, expecting a plaintiff’s brief, and it is that—she was an intern for lawyers pursuing civil claims on their behalf as a college student, in the summer of 2003. She believes passionately that the Five hadn’t raped the jogger; she is more circumspect in her treatment of their other felonies: “At some point, the metal bar from Korey’s house that Yusef had carried in the park had been used to beat Laughlin.” She is enthusiastic in her support of Ryan’s assessment, but doesn’t include this quote on their conduct that night: “The other crimes committed on April 19 were grave and inexcusable—unprovoked attacks on strangers, apparently undertaken for the fun of it, which left some terrorized, two knocked into unconsciousness, and one seriously injured.”
This is what makes criminal justice reform so hard. If it was just a matter of not taking completely unconnected people and beating confessions out of them, reform would be easy. What’s hard is giving due process and the benefit of the doubt to bad people, or people who committed some crimes but not others.
This is a recurring pattern in exoneration stories (and criminal defense generally). Very often the accused are bad people—the question is whether they did the specific thing they’re accused of doing.