The Central Park Five

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/arts/television/when-they-see-us.html

by wellokthen • 7 years ago

90 68 7 years ago

jwr• 7 years ago

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.

ncmncm2• 7 years ago

The perpetrator confessed after they were in prison.

testvox• 7 years ago

In fact the supposed perpetrator confessed after he met at least one of the 5 in prison. I say supposed as he was never actually convicted of the crime.

lotsofpulp3• 7 years ago

They were convicted based partly on police-coerced confessions, and each spent between six and 13-plus years in prison for charges including attempted murder, rape and assault.

woodruffw2• 7 years ago

I know you probably didn't mean mistake in this way, but for the record: the conviction was a mistake, but the corrupt investigation and aggressive prosecution were entirely intentional. NYC's criminal justice system is structured to produce these kinds of outcomes for minorities accused of crimes.

gatherhunterer• 7 years ago

Stop-and-frisk is ongoing in New York despite years of data on the fact that police almost exclusively target young Black and Latino men and that the policy has little to no discernible effect on crime prevention or criminal apprehension. The NY branch of the ACLU is a good place to find a summary of the data[1], such as: "in 2011, Black and Latino New Yorkers made up 24 percent of the population in Park Slope, but 79 percent of stops." If the NYPD were doing this to white people to the same extent it would have stopped by now. The policy is a direct violation of the fourth amendment.

1. https://www.nyclu.org/en/stop-and-frisk-facts

mikeash• 7 years ago

Racism is a hell of a drug.

throwaway6220192• 7 years ago

I'm puzzled: did they actually put five people in jail, even though there was actually one perpetrator?

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...

eaurouge2• 7 years ago

The only person who's DNA was found there (who wasn't part of the five)

Are you saying the police found DNA of one or more of the five on the victim?

throwaway9876652• 7 years ago

The Armstrong report is problematic. Its main goal is to justify the conduct of the NYPD and it does so by inventing new theories of the crime. In presenting the report the committee members themselves said that they could not rule out the possibility that the defendants are completely innocent of the crime (which is the definition of “reasonable doubt “). For some reporting on this committee at the time see

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/nyregion/new-slant-on-jog...

timcederman• 7 years ago

The Armstrong report is pretty clear in saying how likely it is the 5 were involved in the assault:

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...

themgt• 7 years ago

The report is incredibly damning. Just to use one example, Korey Wise is in the NYT, described as:

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.”

https://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Armstrong.pdf

rayiner8• 7 years ago

The accusation was that all five participated in the assault. This wasn’t an isolated rape in a park. It happened on the same night as mass assaults in the park that resulted in 30 arrests. There was physical evidence that the five had participated in some of the other attacks: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-myth-of-the-central-park-f...

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.

ncmncm2• 7 years ago

Trump was quoted recently saying he still thought they should have been executed.

We owe these men, and the myriads who have experienced more and less, more that could be repaid in a thosand years. Best start.

bilbo0s8• 7 years ago

Politicians say a lot of things in the US. Especially when it comes to black guys. Obviously, not much of it is true, and I wouldn't put too much stock in it, but the thing is...

as horrible as this may sound to say...

it can get a lot of votes.

lotsofpulp3• 7 years ago

I don’t understand why someone should NOT put “too much stock” into what a politician says. If anything, as much stock as possible should be put in. Especially in context of executing 5 innocent people.

watwut2• 7 years ago

He was not politician back then.

Edit: I don't mean it as defense people. Just that, he did not said it to gain votes back then. He said it because that is what he believed and who he is, nothing to do with politicians as a group.

Being genuine racist is not better then playing up racism for votes. Maybe even worst in impact (as pretender will be less zealous in pushing for such policies). Don't understand why people think otherwise.

maxxxxx• 7 years ago

It’s a little scary that the same guy who makes these statements also can make decisions that may lead to war. Lets hope his other decisions are a little more fact based but I have my doubts.

CalChris• 7 years ago

The New York Times article doesn't mention the role Trump played in the story, about his spending $85,000 placing ads calling for a return of the death penalty.

Even after the exonerations, Trump has continued to maintain that the five men had been criminals.

http://time.com/5597843/central-park-five-trump-history/

pimlottc2• 7 years ago

http://time.com/5597843/central-park-five-trump-history/

Warning, parent link contains auto-playing video. Even after you pause it, it'll unpause itself after it finished buffering.

40acres2• 7 years ago

I really resented my parents growing up because they would never let me play outside. I was raised in Central Brooklyn in the 90s and stories like The Central Park Five and Abner Louima were cautionary tales in our neighborhood. We were too broke for summer programs so I spent a lot of my summers watching daytime TV, playing video games and browsing the internet. Brooklyn has changed a lot since the Regan / Bush days, but when you look closely you can see the scars of crime hysteria and the drug war still here.

pimlottc2• 7 years ago

To be clear, since it might not be obvious to some readers: the fear your parents had about playing outside is what the police might do to you, as opposed to concerns about crime or general violence, is that correct?

40acres2• 7 years ago

Yes, and for good reason. NYC had a high crime rate in the 80s and 90s, once I was able to have my own day to day autonomy (mid teens, mid 2000s) the city was much safer.

I understand the push for crime reduction policies, lots of minorities (who are victims of crimes themselves) wanted a tougher approach. Unfortunately the politics of the day was that the cruelest types of punishments won out. Three strikes and stop and frisk have devastated the community.

nyolfen• 7 years ago

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/NY...

https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ny-murder-rate...

hugi• 7 years ago

If it's any consolation; your parents must really have loved you since they kept you inside. I have three kids and I cherish every moment that I get to send them outside to play. But I live in a safe place and honestly, "random murder and rape" might change my mind.

bilbo0s8• 7 years ago

I might be wrong, but I get the sense that his parents were not concerned about random murder and rape. More about the cops coming after their kids.

Just pointing that out because I don't think you would agree with that sentiment. So you might want to adjust your comment to indicate that you would be more afraid of criminals than cops.

MRD85• 7 years ago

Surely your parents also wanted to stop you falling in with "the wrong crowd"? I'd wager a lot of people in jail are good people who fell in with the wrong crowd.

scarface74• 7 years ago

But the thing is a Black kid who gets in minor mischief is a criminal in the waiting. A white kid doing the same thing is “kids will be kids” and “that could be my child”.

rayiner8• 7 years ago

One of the things I hate about coverage of false convictions is that all the nuance gets lost. It’s important to note that the Central Park five were convicted of multiple attacks in the park, of which the rape of the jogger was one. Their responsibility for the other felonies are not seriously contested: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-myth-of-the-central-park-f...

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.”

Obviously that doesn’t justify the false conviction or some of the associated tactics. But it is important context. As we saw with “Making of a Murderer,” these investigations are complex. It’s easy to portray a one-sided narrative that obscures how the justice system can be led to the wrong result, to make it seem like this black box that capriciously chews up and spits out totally random people. Usually, when it happens, there is an explanation. The explanation might involve racism, or human error, or misconduct. But it’s almost never totally the result of those things.

xmmrm2• 7 years ago

Not much nuance to this: They were guilty and they are guilty.

From the Armstrong Report:

We believe the inconsistencies contained in the various statements were not such as to destroy their reliability. On the other hand, there was a general consistency that ran through the defendants' descriptions of the attack on the female jogger: she was knocked down on the road, dragged into the woods, hit and molested by several defendants, sexually abused by some while others held her arms and legs, and left semiconscious in a state of undress.

bilbo0s8• 7 years ago

Yeah but for all we know, they didn't commit those crimes either. I mean, they, "confessed", to a lot right. There were "witnesses", to them doing a lot right.

They may have done all of what they confessed to, or they may have been tortured and done none of it. That's the problem with bent police forces and court systems, there's just a baseline confidence issue. That baseline confidence issue creates the conditions that make people perfectly justified in being skeptical. And winning that confidence back is extremely difficult. In fact, depending on how bad the conditions are, it may not even be possible.

When torture is allowed into the judicial process either overtly or covertly, the integrity of the entire system eventually degrades over time.

EDIT:

On re-reading that, it sounded bad. I didn't mean that they might have been tortured. I understand that torture was part of the process. So perhaps I should have written:

"...or they may have done none of it, and the torture prompted confessions..."

dmix• 7 years ago

They were beating random people with metal pipes and knocked two unconscious the same night? Funny, I've previously watched a long documentary on this trial (not the new Netflix show) and I don't remember this part at all. It's interesting to contrast the popular perception of the case with the on-the-ground reality.

It seems one of the reports concluded that either one or some of the boys were there before/after the rape based on their detailed statements related to the crime scene and knowledge of the exact location.

I'm curious if the boys knew the Reyes guy whose DNA was found on the victim beforehand or if they happened to come across the crime scene during a particularly violent night in Central Park and/or were in a particular section of the park where local kids tended to congregate.

xrd6• 7 years ago

Really fascinating to read the comments here.

Lots of discussions about whether they truly were guilty of this crime or another.

Not much being said about the fact that they were children and that even if they did commit another crime at another time or were witnesses to the crime or whatever, it's not necessarily a "good thing" that they were in jail long into adulthood.

Hacker News showing its true colors here.

xmmrm2• 7 years ago

they attacked another jogger, hitting him in the back of the head with a pipe and stick

They pummeled two men into unconsciousness, hitting them with a metal pipe, stones, and punches, and kicking them in the head.

The first policeman who saw her said: "She was beaten as badly as anybody I've ever seen beaten. She looked like she was tortured."

It’s a very “good thing” that they were in jail long into adulthood.

dang• 7 years ago

Hacker News showing its true colors here

HN is a statistical cloud of millions of people. Since you're commenting here, you're as much a part of it as anyone.

A run of comments sharing a common quality doesn't show anything about "true colors"—pure randomness exhibits the same patterns. What happens, though, is that after seeing a few (say, 3) comments taking an offensive or opposing position, people feel surrounded by hostile voices, and that feeling 'sticks' to the community in the form of the perception "HN is X". HN isn't X. It just feels that way after a few noticeable signals in a row.

rayiner8• 7 years ago

None were children. All were older teenagers. The central requirement of criminal culpability is being able to intellectually distinguish rights from wrong. There was no indication that they were too young to properly understand that difference.

xrd6• 7 years ago

Hey, I'm not a lawyer but apparently you are.

I'll post these questions and promise to honestly read what you respond with. I'm not trolling.

Correct my thinking:

They were 14, 15, 16 at the time. Older teenagers you said. Do you agree with the fact (is it?) that one of them was actually younger than 16 and questioned without his parents present? Does that matter at all to you as a lawyer? If you feel they are not children, do you feel our system should change the definition of consensual sexual activity for minors, for example. I think there are many indications that brain development is not complete by 18 or 21 and there is good reason to categorize them as children.

Again, not a lawyer: isn't the typical time served for rape 5.6 years? Battery between 1-25 years. Was it normal and just for them to be behind bars for 6 to 13 years, when the city settled and released them? Another way to ask, were these sentences just (not asking for your opinion personally but is this typical for those types of cases)

And, am I wrong to question these convictions when no DNA evidence connected them to the rape, but Reyes was definitely linked later? Is the true story there obscured and am I missing it?

My sense after reading about this case for years is that their sentences and the handling of this case were improper if you care about criminal justice in the US. And that it changed our justice system for the worse. That's my thesis here, not that there is a grey area about this case specifically.

bilbo0s8• 7 years ago

Again, assuming they actually did anything. Which at this point is a pretty big assumption. One requiring us to believe a one-sided narrative. So either we believe the one sided narrative of the NY Times camp, or we believe the one sided narrative of the Trump-like camp.

The only things we really know as fact, is that the DNA at the scene belonged to the perp. Which perp turned out to be none of the people we actually convicted of the crime.

Everything else requires us to believe suspect entities. Were the confessions uncoerced? Well, that all depends on whether or not you believe the NYPD and the courts.

Was it actually these kids who committed all these other crimes? Well, again, depends on whether you want to believe the NYPD and courts, or the guys who are now speaking without fear of further torture.

This whole thing went off the rails when the initial exculpatory evidence was ignored. From that point on, every decision just made things worse and worse.

forgottenpass• 7 years ago

Hacker News showing its true colors here.

Your high horse certainly isn't helping.

Not much being said about [...]

What exactly are you getting at here?

Do you want everyone to talk about this to the exclusion of other aspects of the case? Or if there is some room for other topics, as long as there exists a certain percentage of us giving perfunctory agreement on this point?

Your post reads to me as a roundabout saying-without-saying accusation of moral failing among people who very well may agree with you, for wishing to discuss other aspects of this case.

The Central Park Five

Related Stories