Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Does parole revocation from a false conviction trigger compensation?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Justice Donate to DU
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 11:49 AM
Original message
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One of those pardoned ended up serving concurrent prison sentences when his probation on an unrelated drug charge was revoked.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:

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2010/11/innocence-compensation-and-past-crimes.html
Refresh | +1 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Justice Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC