Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Man imprisoned 17 years for a rape he didn't commit has wages garnished for child support payments he couldn't make in prison

Too, too often, "the law is a ass."   Here's another example of that irrefutable fact. A man spent 17 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit, and upon his release, he received no compensation from the state -- but his wages are being garnished because he owes the mother of his children tens of thousands of dollars for past child custody payments -- payments he couldn't make because he was wrongfully imprisoned.

Now, think about it. If Alan Northrop had been killed seventeen years ago, the mother of his children would have received nothing. How is this different?  Mr. Northrop was deprived of seventeen years of his life because the state allowed him to be put behind bars for a crime he didn't commit.  The mother of his children managed without his money all that time, but now the state says he needs to pay her money, and the state is helping her collect it.

Here's my suggestion: if the state thinks she deserves the money, the state should pay it. Mr. Northrop's obligation should be cleared. Then, the state should compensate Mr. Northrop several million dollars, along with a handwritten apology from the Governor, the district attorney who prosecuted the case (if he or she is still alive), and the judge (if he or she is still alive).  No amount of money will make up for what happened. Maybe we need to start naming and shaming district attorneys and judges who allow things like this, not to mention the women whose accusations put men behind bars for rapes they didn't commit.

Here's the news story -- and thanks for the tip to Mary:

Bill would compensate exonerated inmates


Alan Northrop spent 17 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit. When he was finally exonerated, he received no compensation from Washington state.
 
Instead, he got a six-figure child-support bill.
 
Rep. Tina Orwall says the episode illustrates a failure on the part of the state. She's planning to introduce legislation this week that would recompense wrongfully convicted inmates for their time behind bars, bringing Washington into line with more than half of U.S. states and the federal government.
 
It calls for giving former inmates found to be actually innocent $50,000 per year in prison, plus $50,000 more for every year spent on death row and $25,000 for every year on community supervision or as a registered sex offender. Other tenets could include providing health care and paying child support obligations incurred by prisoners during their incarceration.
 
But because of Washington's dire financial situation - lawmakers are trying to fill a $4.6 billion budget gap - Orwall's bill wouldn't allow exonerated inmates to start collecting until 2014.
 
"The bill is about fairness," says Orwall, D-Des Moines. "Hopefully the money helps them rebuild their lives. They really need a certain amount of support and resources."
 
Northrop says he could use those resources sooner rather than later.
 
He and his co-defendant, Larry Davis, were identified by a housecleaner in La Center, north of Vancouver, as the men who attacked her in 1993 - even though she initially didn't pick them out in a photo montage. After years of trying, the Innocence Project Northwest at the University of Washington Law School finally persuaded a judge to test evidence, including skin cells taken from under her fingernails, for DNA.
 
The DNA belonged to two unknown men. Northrop and Davis were freed last year. They're among 15 people who have had convictions overturned by the Innocence Project's work in Washington state. Others include Ted Bradford, who was cleared of a rape in Yakima County last year, and James Anderson, who was cleared of a robbery in late 2009; both say they could use some compensation, too.
 
Exonerated inmates can try to sue for damages, but such cases rarely succeed because they need to prove intentional misconduct by law enforcement officials.
 
When he was released from prison last year, Northrop was told he owed $111,000 in back child support. About half was due to the mother of his children and half to the state, which helped support the family while Northrop was incarcerated.
 
The state Department of Social and Health Services has a program for forgiving child support bills in hardship cases, and it waived its share of Northrop's balance in November, within a few hours of receiving an inquiry from an Associated Press reporter. But Northrop still owes tens of thousands of dollars to his former partner, and the state is garnishing his wages to the tune of $100 per month.

Meanwhile, Northrop is struggling to save up enough money for a car so he can keep his $12-an-hour job at a metal fabrication shop in Vancouver. He lives in Ridgefield with his girlfriend, a former classmate with whom he became re-aquainted last spring.

"They owe us - somebody does," he says. "I'm struggling right now. I need every penny."

Lara Zarowsky, a policy staff attorney at the Innocence Project Northwest, worked with Orwall's office in drafting the bill to compensate exonerated inmates. The payments would match those in the federal law.

The legislation could also guarantee free tuition at state schools for the former prisoners and their children.

"Philosophically, it's a statement to the community that we acknowledge these cases exist, and when they do we're going to have safeguards in place to protect these people," Zarowsky said. "We need it in terms of making a statement about what our society values."

During a recent symposium on the topic at the UW Law School, Northrop's co-defendant said the only work he'd been able to find in the past eight months was three days in construction.

"I'm one step away from holding a sign up that says 'will work for food,'" Davis said. "It'd sure be nice to have some help."

Link: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/433518_wrongly16.html

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Stop, stop. Every time I come to this blog it's like getting kicked in the nuts.

Anonymous said...

Stop, stop. Every time I come to this blog it's like getting kicked in the nuts.

Archivist said...

Anon, just wear a cup when you come here from now on.

Elusive Wapiti said...

It's not this blog at which one needs to wear a cup, but in our so-called justice system's constant attempts to rochambeau men at every turn.

Archivist said...

Well put, EW!

randian said...

While it's true the law is an ass, the real moral failing here is the mother demanding back child support. What kind of monster, upon finding out the father of her children was in fact innocent, demands a six-figure child support bill (or indeed any child support at all) from him? I generally expect women to have little compassion or empathy for men, but this is over the top.

Archivist said...

Randian, agreed about the mother. And the state shouldn't help her.

Anonymous said...

OT

These are quotes from the man who called everyone on this blog "rapists".

"You see, I take my Xanax twice a day."

"My regular doctor and my shrink think it would be a bad idea for me to stop the Xanax and Rome Girl has said point black that she'd leave me if I stopped taking it. (And I can't blame her, I'm awful unmedicated.)"

I told you he was a nut case. Now we have proof.

"And I can't blame her, I'm awful unmedicated."

Yeah, we know.

ScareCrow said...

This is just disgusting.

Instead of being negative, I plan to write that representative a letter congratulating her on her stand against injustice...

Rep. Tina Orwall

Anonymous said...

If he had died the kids would have gotten Social Security survivor benefits. This happened to a friend of mine. The dirt bag father had a job as a bartender and only claimed his hourly wage which was $3 something (Texas allows servers to be paid well below minimum wage) so his support was not even $100/mo. He died and the kid started out getting a little over $600/mo, I think it has gone up a little since then.

Archivist said...

"If he had died the kids would have gotten Social Security survivor benefits."

And maybe life insurance.

Not the man's fault nobody got anything. One sure way to end this false rape epidemic is to start making the state pay for its mistakes.

Anonymous said...

@Archivist said:
One sure way to end this false rape epidemic is to start making the state pay for its mistakes.


Another way would be to actually sentence the false accusers to substantial jail time.

J. Bowen said...

Meh. He wasn't on death row.

Clarence Brandley - who was falsely accused and convicted of raping and murdering a 16-year old student at the high school where he worked - spent nine years on death row before being freed. Not only did he never receive an apology from anyone responsible for putting him on death row, he was also denied the right to sue the state for wrongful imprisonment (the state said he couldn't sue the state) and then, as punishment for daring to sue the state for wrongfully putting him on death row, was pursued by the child support gestapo for failing to pay child support...while he was in prison on death row for a crime that he didn't commit.

J. Bowen said...

@Archivist said:
One sure way to end this false rape epidemic is to start making the state pay for its mistakes.


Another way would be to actually sentence the false accusers to substantial jail time.


Making the state pay for its mistakes (most states DO allow the wrongfully-convicted (with the exception of men who are wrongfully convicted of being fathers of children who they did not father) to receive compensation, though in most cases it's limited to a certain amount) is certainly the most effective way of combating this problem. Hitting people where it hurts most tends to make people a little more cautious.

As for providing harsh punishments for false accusers, I'm not entirely sure that that would be the most effective solution. While it would certainly be useful in combating a certain segment of false accusers - namely, those who are so reckless and unconcerned about their own futures that they leave clues that can be followed by clever investigators - it would do nothing to combat false accusations from more careful women and may in fact make matters worse. In some of the cases that have been reported here, the woman might have gotten away with her crime if she had not had a change of heart or told someone else about what she did. If a woman is calculating enough to make a plan for how she was going to ruin some guy's life, knowing that she would go to prison if she told another person would only make her more careful. It would certainly not help men who are defending themselves in he-said/she-said cases. It might help save some men from becoming victims of some psycho, but it would certainly doom others to a life sentence as a prisoner or registered sex offender.

Just as this problem is the consequence of well-intended legislation (when you get down to it, the legislation and case law that created this problem was intended to prevent rape and to punish rapists, not to entrap innocent men), well-intended legislation or case law that is designed to combat this problem needs to be carefully crafted to ensure that it doesn't create another problem that could be even worse.

I believe that making the state financially responsible and requiring it to publicly acknowledge in a very loud way (perhaps in the form of a publicly-available list of every wrongfully-charged, convicted, and imprisoned person) it's mistakes would be far more effective than going after the accusers (though I do think they ought to be prosecuted). It's the state that is prosecuting and imprisoning these men; not the accusers. Anybody can accuse anybody of anything. If the state had more of an incentive to be more careful, the psychopaths who make false accusations would find their false accusations falling on deaf ears. I also think that people who are caught making false accusations should be denied all public services - including police protection and the use of the courts - in the same way that drug dealers and drug users are denied financial aid for schooling. These people are taking advantage of the system and at the very least ought to be cut off from it. The way in which services are delivered would have to be modified, but it's not an impossibility (the private sector already has the free-rider problem figured out, so I know it can be done).

Nicolas Martin said...

Is Facebook censoring this site? When I try to share this link on my FB page a message appears saying that the link has been reported as abusive.

J. Bowen said...

That...is...awesome.

Archivist said...

No idea, Nicolas. Not a fan of Facebook, but if they think we're "abusive," they don't get around the Internet very much. I do know that we are being watched by a hell of a lot of people lately who never paid attention to us previously.

Archivist said...

Off Topic: Here you go, Scott. Federal money perpetuating the sexual grievance industry. How disgusting that the Feds requires teens to register for life. I get it -- sex offenses carry a life sentence. More than most murders; more than the worst robbery.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/2011/01/maryland_sex_offender_registry.html

Archivist said...

Try again:

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/
2011/01/maryland_sex_offender_registry.html

Anonymous said...

@Nicolas Martin

"Is Facebook censoring this site? When I try to share this link on my FB page a message appears saying that the link has been reported as abusive."

Try using a link shortener, like bit.ly and see if you can get it on facebook.

Anonymous said...

@Nicolas Martin

I just used bit.ly to shorten a link from FRS and posted into my facebook profile with no problems. So, if you're dealing with Facebook censorship, use http://bit.ly or another link shortener:
http://www.google.com/search?q=link+shortener&rlz=1I7GZEZ_en

Anonymous said...

Jan 18, 2011 5:33:00 PM

No reason why they shouldn't do both.

Anonymous said...

"If a woman is calculating enough to make a plan for how she was going to ruin some guy's life, knowing that she would go to prison if she told another person would only make her more careful. It would certainly not help men who are defending themselves in he-said/she-said cases. It might help save some men from becoming victims of some psycho, but it would certainly doom others to a life sentence as a prisoner or registered sex offender."

That's a logical point. The first thing is that we need to require corroborating evidence defined by statute, so that someone cannot be convicted based solely on "she said". Thereby making her recantation far less relevant.

The second thing is there needs to be a consideration in the law punishing false accusers for those who freely recant on their own, as opposed to those proven wrong by other evidence.

Human-Stupidity.com said...

you should fight the censorship at facebook. Not sure how.

But you get "link juice" by direct links. Get a few hundreds or thousands actively in your defense on facebook.

About the wage garnishing: the main problem and injustice is: how can someone be responsible for more child support then he earns?

Let us say, someone has to pay half his earnings in child support. Well, if he earns nothing, that is nothing. Child support needs to be adapted downward if earnings drop.

Would make women to think twice who they get themselves made pregnant by.

Again, Mr archivist lawyer: is this not anti-constitutional? Slavery? cruel and unusual punishment? Demanding someone pay more then he earns in child support? This is slavery!!