Slashdot Mirror
Database Finds Fugitive After 35 Years
Hugh Pickens writes "The Guardian has a story on a woman who was claims she is innocent and was apprehended 35 years after escaping prison by a computer database created by the Department of Homeland Security. Linda Darby was convicted of killing her husband in 1970 and sentenced to life at an Indiana prison but escaped two years later by climbing over a barbed-wire fence at the Indiana Women's Prison. She knocked on a stranger's door in Indianapolis, telling the woman who answered that her cuts and scratches were from a fight with her boyfriend. In Indianapolis she met the man who would become her third husband and moved to his hometown of Pulaski, where they raised their two children and watched eight grandchildren grow up. As Linda Jo McElroy, she used a similar date of birth and social security number to her real ones which allowed a computer database created by the Department of Homeland Security to identify her. Darby says she is innocent and fled prison because she did not want to serve time for another person's crime."
The country is now safe from terrorist grandmothers!
Don't be harsh - have you never written a query in such a way that it didn't use the indexes correctly?
/. using the wheelbarrow symbol for database?
P.S. Why is
At the bottom of the
The authorities should focus on finding the one-armed man.
We'll let you have it this time, but in the future please remember that you must claim "frist psot" if you want to be properly recognized for your achievement.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
There's an additional punishment for escaping prison?
Our law defines the attempt to escape (or succeeding) as following the basic human urge to be free, thus not punishable by law.
Of course, what happens is that any chance you had for parole is gone. But there's no additional punishment for breaking out.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What is interesting is that we have this story probably flagged up by the authorities. I suspect that it is to make us think that the ''big government databases'' are a good thing and that we should approve their continued use. What is buried are the stories where these databases have screwed up and inconvenienced (or worse) innocent people.
Back in the 80's I was setting up a call center for the computer company where I worked and one of the steps was to search for duplicate serial numbers and standardize model numbers, customer names, etc. I'm sure anyone who worked with databases understands this process.
Our databases were regional, so while searching for duplicates a whole computer system suddenly disappeared from the Northeast and mysteriously showed up in Florida. I started researching thinking that the system perhaps was stolen but instead I accidentally uncovered a CIA operation. Don't know if it is still active so I won't say anything else about it except database integration can give insights and glimpses into situations that are at first very transparent.
This sounds like what caught Linda.
And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
The title off the post is irritating.
The database did nothing. It is a process running on a computer. Information flows in, (potentially useful) information flows out, a suspected criminal is arrested. One could as well claim that the piping system in a house effected the drowning of someone. Water flowed in, water flowed out, and someone died.
The database is just an occasionally useful tool. The code for it is written by people, and the outputs are intrepreted and acted upon by people.
Could we eschew this slipshod causal analysis?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
So basically you are saying murder is OK. Wow. Innocent until proven guilty but that takes some really... interesting thinking to claim that murder is somehow forgivable.
(Bracing for the bitchslaps...)
You know, this is what drives me crazy about how our justice system deals with murder. On the long list of crimes ranked by recidivism rates, murder ranks very near the bottom. Except for the few sociopaths who see murder as acceptable means for financial or personal gain, and the even fewer number who kill to indulge a predatory instinct or because it's just fun for them, the vast majority of murders are very obviously one-time affairs. Most murderers are far less of a continuing threat to society than, say, rapists and molesters.
So, why do we impose the heaviest sentences for murder, regardless of circumstance, heavier than those crimes that indicate a far more sociopathic personality, if the justice system is first and foremost about protecting society and its interests?
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Escape, and attempted escape is a crime, at least in California, and can result in additional prison time. (I would be surprised if any state did not have similar laws). But of course if you were already in for life, you can't get additional time.
And I quite like Mexico's philosophy on the policy
People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation
Whew! Glad we have her off the streets. Thank God for that database....
I was wondering how it was going...
Because a life sentence for murder is actually a very reasonable deterrent. Remember that almost all murder is done in a premeditated manner (otherwise it would be manslaughter (I'm in the UK)). There are some crimes where you are right, and it is not productive to attach a lengthy jail term as a deterrent (drug use, theft/robbery/burglary etc) but with murder is not one of them.
Murder is the most serious crime, and if you neither attach a jail sentence (to deter) nor a therapy/rehab course (which is pointless because murder, as you said, has a tiny recidivism rate) you aren't actually attaching any judicial response, and murder ceases to be criminal behaviour.
I understand your frustration at the seemingly fruitless punishment for murder (and you are correct; it serves no purpose for the betterment of the convicted), but having a long jail sentence for murder actually does serve society: by deterring murder.
Dunno where he's from, but that applies to Sweden. Here you are usually given parole after 2/3 of the prison time (if you behaved well in prison etc), but of course fleeing removes that chance. It is however proposed by some politicians that it should be punishable.
Have you ever thought that the heavy sentences for murder are what keep the recidivism rate low? After all, it's kind of hare to commit a second murder while in jail.
Also, as you say, vast majority of murders are by people the victim knew. Ever think that the heavy sentences keep others from committing murder?
Sentences are for multiple reasons. Rehabilitation, Punishment and Deterrence. Rehabilitation so the person does not do it again. Punishment for their crime. Deterrence to keep others from committing the same crime.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
No, he's saying that this massive database that spies deeply into our lives that's supposed to catch terrorists is now catching little 'ol grandmas (who killed a person, but is not a terrorist), and that we're supposed to be happy about it. I am not.
I would rather have her free on the street than lose some of my civil liberties. She didn't re-commit crimes, and she led a good life. She did/does deserve to be in jail, but this database is obviously not being used in the context that it was expected to be used in, and that's disturbing.
If you've ever watched an old western, or any outlaw movie -- there's a very romantic idea in America of old criminals righting their ways by themselves, relocating and turning into great, good productive citizens. Then in the end of the movie, some asshole sheriff shows up and drags the ex-criminal back into court/jail to the sadness of the whole town who then rallies behind him. So, yea, internally a lot of people are conflicted -- this person should be in jail, but there's some part of the rough and tumble American ideal inside of people still that says she made it right and should be left alone. She needs to go back into jail for precedence reasons (can't just let her go once they've found a jail-bird), but a part of me is disgusted at the way she was caught -- by this TERRORIST DATABASE, and not by something that would have happened if the government wasn't actively data-mining in places that they normally wouldn't be if it weren't for 9/11/PATRIOT ACT/Bush.
So yea, lock up the criminals (even better, rehabilitate), but don't justify a massive infringement in civil liberties by saying that it has allowed you to lock up grandma.
The news is full of stories lately about people who where convicted by juries of their peers, spent 15-20 years in jail and eventually proven innocent by DNA evidence. Also, OJ was not convicted by a jury of his peers. That pretty much illustrates the value of a jury of your peers.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I'd be somewhat skeptical of those statistics. It seems to me that a murderer is either 1) in jail for his/her crime, 2) trying to avoid being caught, or 3) has been released after a lengthy prison stay. Case 1 makes recidivism difficult. In case 2, the murderer can be expected to be a bit cautious. In case 3, the murderer is at least a decade or two older, and my understanding is that the vast majority of crimes in general are committed by the youth (which may be due to similar statistical influences).
However, that aside, most people agree that there should be *some* consequence for lawbreaking. From what I've seen, there are 4 basic reasons that people want that consequence applied, and many people seem to weight those reasons wildly differently. This leads to some people having a completely reasonable and consistent opinion that still makes absolutely no sense to someone else. The four reasons I've seen are:
1) revenge
2) deterrent
3) rehabilitation
4) prevention of recidivism (in the aspect that someone can't easily commit some crimes while in jail)
So, for someone who weighs 3 and 4 heavily, the sentence for a first murder should be fairly light, as the criminal is unlikely to commit that crime again. If you weigh 1 and 2 heavily, then the consequence should be correlated to the seriousness of the crime, not the chance of the criminal committing the crime again, so a hefty sentence for murder makes sense.
But even if 3 and 4 are the only concerns, there's got to be a reason why one would want to prevent recidivism. That reason is probably the potential for damage that the crime being committed again poses. Even though the recidivism rate for shoplifting is probably incredibly high, if it happens it's still *just shoplifting*. It costs someone some money. Similarly, even though the recidivism rate for murder may be extremely low, when it happens someone still dies, and that can significantly impact a lot of people. (I'm not trying to imply that you think murderers should receive a sentence lighter than shoplifters, it's just two things that tend to be on opposite ends of the scale for both recidivism and the impact of the crime's effects)
Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
You do understand that she ostensibly MURDERED someone? She didn't just steal his ipod or wreck his car - she MURDERED him.
"Given that she spent 35 years on the outside with no further crimes, I'd say that she's pretty rehabilitated already.... but I guess not."
Maybe prison is meant to be *punishment*, and no, I don't think she's done her time if she was in fact guilty.
Or would you agree that someone who kills YOUR sister, son, cousin, father - and managed to evade capture for 35 years should just be therefore forgiven?
-Styopa
Punishment? No, you mean Revenge.
Revenge is about hate.
The supposed purpose of the police system is to ensure that people are free of fear and hate. That we are safe to live in peace. Prison is supposed to remove people from society as long as they pose a threat, and it is meant to rehabilitate people so that they can lead peaceful lives. That is the end purpose of the law. That is the way we protect ourselves.
Without knowing more about the woman and the life she has lived, we cannot judge. Perhaps she was being abused and her killing the man was an accidental result of self-defense. Or perhaps she was a jealous lunatic. Or perhaps she really was falsely accused. We do not know. But I DO know that revenge is not why I pay taxes. If this woman today poses no threat, if she has become a giving person who helps society, then containing her and ruining her psyche in a prison system which has a lousy track record of actually rehabilitating people, then what has happened here is a step backwards.
You cannot un-kill people. The past is the past, and it may be very sad. But the future is not well served through revenge and further acts of hate. As Gandhi put it, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
-FL
In the People's Republic of California, a conviction equals guilt. It never matters if a crime actually occurred, or who did it. Just round up the usual suspects and see if any plausible story can be cooked up with the DA. Who is the jury gonna believe? We are all just out on our own recognizance until they find out who didn't bring a lawyer. A litmus test for people I meet is to tell about one of the times that I was grabbed off the street as a likely suspect. A witness was brought by my cell, he told the cop "That ain't the guy" cop says "Are you sure? look again." Witness got pissed off that the cops dragged him out there, cop was pissed that the witness wouldn't finger me. I reckon a lot of folks go "well maybe it could have been him". Its not like it was a line-up either, just me, alone in a box. An amazing (to me) number of people say I wouldn't have been arrested if I didn't do anything, and shun me. Those are MY peers.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Hi,
if I remember correctly the department of homeland security was created to fight dangers for the national security, that is terrorists. How does a database of Americans fit into this? And why was it used to catch a fugitive prisoner - no matter whether she was was acutally a murderess or not? What's next? Catching people for speeding?
twm
Actually, she doesn't deserve to be in jail.
You may think I'm crazy for saying that, of course, but I'm not a fan of the retributive concept of "justice" that countries like the USA use. For me, prison has two functions, and none beyond these: 1) keep society safe from those criminals who're actually dangerous; 2) reeducate criminals for the purpose of enabling them to function as productive members of society again.
Now look at this case. 1) Is it necessary to put her in jail to keep society safe? No; she's been living for 35 years without doing anything, and possibly never was a threat at all, depending on whether she was indeed rightfully convicted or not (something I naturally can't comment on). 2) Is is necessary to reeducate her? No; she's already become a productive member of society again.
Therefore, putting her in jail is counterproductive and wrong - QED. Unless, of course, one believes in using prison to take revenge on people, but that's not something I do (although I do realise I'd probably be in the minority if I lived in the USA).
Last time i looked, in Indiana, yes there is additional punishment for escaping.
Oddly enough, this woman led a seemingly normal crime free life for 35 years. Perhaps she was innocent in the beginning like she claims, as its really hard for a criminal to go cold turkey.
---- Booth was a patriot ----