Twenty-five years ago a young white
woman left for a run through New York City’s Central Park. That run and the
resulting brutal rape and beating she endured set in motion a chain of events
that altered the lives of five young black men and their families.
The attack on the victim quickly
riveted the nation’s attention beyond its senseless viciousness. The young
woman was an attractive, athletic white college graduate who was employed by a
Wall Street firm. Almost, immediately after she was discovered beaten in the
park the press began reporting her attackers were a roving gang of black youths
preying on victims in a pack-like frenzy. Soon, the public was introduced to
the word “wilding,” a term talking heads in the press created to describe such group
attacks.
New York’s Mayor and police
commissioner vowed they would find the perpetrators and “bring them to
justice.” Massive resources – police officers and the latest tools in criminal
investigations – were employed to find the roving band. And America watched each
day as reports came out about the victim: head trauma, broken bones. The
horrendous details went on and on until … until justice was done.
With great fanfare, New York’s
finest announced the arrest of five African-American teenagers. The case was
airtight; there was physical evidence and there were confessions.
And it was life-imitating art,
imitating life, the droning on about the racial makeup of victim and attacker.
The five defendants – brutal,
violent sociopaths, animalistic in their bloodlust – were tried and justice
meted out. And the city was once again safe for pretty young white women to jog
in …
Except it was all wrong.
In what would later turn out to be
bad police work, the investigation wrongly focused on these five young men who
actually had no physical connection to the attack, nor any physical evidence to
even warrant any suspicion. The police used improper interview techniques and
cajoled and coerced some of these five boys to give phony confessions
implicating themselves and each other.
And the poor victim who struggled to
recover from the serious injuries she sustained was led to believe “these are
the attackers.” These five young men, labeled rapists and sent to a New York maximum-security
prison proclaimed their innocence … and no one listened.
Two weeks ago, New York City
announced a $40 million settlement with these men. The truth had come out years
earlier. The truth about their innocence, the police malfeasance, it all came
out and they were released and exonerated. The attacker a lone sex-predator –
was in custody. His DNA matched the crime scene; his confession was airtight.
There was no “wilding,” there was no “Central Park 5.” There were only five
wrongly convicted men who were destroyed in the press and sent to prison.
Forty million dollars. It sounds
like a lot. But, consider that for years – even after the men were exonerated
and released; even after it was admitted in court that the confessions were
improperly obtained and evidence lacking – the city refused to acknowledge its
mistakes. For years these men, these innocent men who had suffered through the
hell of New York’s maximum security prison apparatus and who lost years from
their lives, were never even given an apology.
How much is your freedom worth? How
much is your reputation, your name worth after it’s been smeared in the press?
$40 million feels like thirty pieces of silver. And worse, the money these men
received is more than ten times what a wrongly convicted person would receive
in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The government doesn’t like admitting its
missteps or adequately compensating the wrongly convicted.
“J'accuse.” In 1894 a French
military officer named Dreyfus was accused of conspiring with the hated
Germans. Dreyfus was an easy target. He was Jewish and everyone in French
military and political circles knew how “those Jews” couldn’t be trusted.
Convicted of treason, he was sent to France’s notorious penal colony off
Guyana, Devil’s Island, to pay for his crimes.
The writer Emile Zola refused to accept
the rush to judgment and the neatness of the investigation. “J'accuse” – “I
accuse the authorities of betraying and convicting an innocent man.” And the
truth willed out, Zola prevailed, and Dreyfus was freed from hell.
In our rush to judge we often rely
on our prejudices and our fears to direct our opinions. We forget the police,
the government, are made up of fallible individuals who can be manipulated or
are lazy, greedy, stupid, or just plain wrong. Perhaps that is why the great
theologian Martin Luther, in response to his church’s call to recant – to
accept the “political reality” of his times uttered “On the (God’s word) I
stand. On this and no other.”
The “Central Park 5” are free. Yet,
like Dreyfus in 1894 innocent men and women still suffer when government rushes
toward guilt. Consider that the next time our 24-hour news channels tell you
the police have “broken a case.” Someday, you could be Dreyfus.
No comments:
Post a Comment