ShareThis Page
Editorials

Michelle Malkin: Step one to stop false accusations: Exposure

| Sunday, June 3, 2018, 8:47 p.m.

Incontrovertible fact: People lie.

They fudge little things, like their height or weight. They exaggerate their athletic prowess or professional accomplishments. They deceive family, friends, lovers, voters, government officials, business partners and themselves. They lie about murder, theft, kidnapping, rape and discrimination. They lie for attention, deflection, power and profit.

Often, the reasons for manufacturing devastating fables are indiscernible or unfathomable. But this much is clear: If there are no consequences for lying about crime, false accusations will continue to ruin the lives of innocents — poor and rich, black and white, liberal and conservative, civilian and cop.

According to the University of Michigan Law School's National Registry of Exonerations, 2,224 innocent criminal defendants since 1989 have been cleared of all charges in their cases. The average prison term served by exonerees is 14 years. In total, wrongful convictions have cost exonerees 19,610 years of freedom since 1982.

John Bunn, wrongfully convicted of assault and murder when he was 14, is one of more than a dozen innocent citizens who became entangled in New York Police Department Det. Louis Scarcella's nefarious web of deception. The infamous cop falsified and suppressed evidence and coerced false confessions to ensure convictions and bolster his career. Bunn and co-defendant Rosean Hargrave became the 12th and 13th exonerees who had been targeted by Scarcella.

Daryl Fulton and Nevest Coleman each served nearly a quarter-century behind bars for a 1997 rape and murder of a woman in Chicago they did not commit. They endured physical abuse by detectives with a long history of coercing false confessions. Fulton and Coleman were released in November and granted certificates of actual innocence two months ago after post-conviction DNA testing and reinvestigation by the Cook County Conviction Integrity Unit cleared them.

Question: If accusers can level rape and other claims decades after a purported crime occurs, why shouldn't the statute of limitations on prosecuting lies about crimes and seeking civil redress against all enablers be extended proportionally, too?

What's shocking is that public amnesia sets in every time accusers level sensational allegations of crimes in the court of public opinion before all the facts are known. Witness the knee-jerk social media conviction of innocent white Texas state trooper Daniel Hubbard by anti-cop advocate and former New York Daily News columnist Shaun King, who spread uncritically the false claims of a black woman who lied about Hubbard raping her during a traffic stop.

The admitted liar, Sherita Dixon-Cole, will not be prosecuted based on a technicality. Incredibly, King is reportedly moving on to a job with the Harvard-affiliated Fair Punishment Project, which in part conducts research to prevent more wrongful convictions.

Reform begins with confronting, instead of denying, reality. The cure for ignorance is exposure. Bias of all kinds destroys lives. People lie about everything under the sun. Women do lie about rape. Judges, prosecutors and police are not infallible. The system does fail.

The good news is that each of us is capable of helping amend and avert these wrongs. The bad news is that no one is ever safe.

Michelle Malkin is host of “Michelle Malkin Investigates” on CRTV.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me