Wrongful convictions harm more than the falsely accused

Patricia Nicarico's death prompts a sobering reminder of a painful truth

To read this issue in your browser, click on the headline above.

Eric Zorn is a former opinion columnist for the Chicago Tribune. Find a longer bio and contact information here. This issue exceeds in size the maximum length for a standard email. To read the entire issue in your browser, click on the headline link above. Paid subscribers receive each Picayune Plus in their email inbox each Tuesday, are part of our civil and productive commenting community and enjoy the sublime satisfaction of supporting this enterprise.

The additional tragedy of a wrongful conviction

The death of Patricia Nicarico at age 80 last month reminded me of the often overlooked truth that malicious or bungled prosecutions also harm the families of crime victims.

From Bob Goldsborough’s Tribune obituary:

On Feb. 25, 1983, Nicarico’s 10-year-old daughter Jeanine was home sick with the flu when she was abducted and killed. DuPage County State’s Attorney Joseph Birkett in 2005 called the murder “one of the worst in the history of this county.”

The case extended across a quarter-century. Three men initially were indicted, two of whom were found guilty of the slaying and sentenced to death before the state Supreme Court struck down those convictions.

After subsequent retrials and convictions, along with the introduction of new evidence and appeals, one of the men was acquitted of the crimes in 1995, while the DuPage County state’s attorney’s office dismissed all charges against the other man later that year. In 2005, Brian Dugan, a serial killer who previously had confessed to the crime, was indicted, found guilty and sentenced to death. … Nicarico and her husband endured six trials across 25 years, along with numerous appeals and sentencing hearings.

In the 1990s I wrote somewhere around 100 columns about this dreadful case, outlining the obvious ways in which the initial suspects were plainly not guilty and Dugan was the obvious killer. The refusal of the DuPage County State’s Attorney’s office to admit to the misrepresentations they’d made that had put two men on Death Row who had nothing to do with the murder resulted in the case dragging on and on, resurfaced not just in court and in my columns, but in magazine articles and documentary TV reports.

I’ve become convinced over the years that pursuing this injustice was not mere prosecutorial error or bad judgment by people trying to do right, but a cynical effort to vindicate and cover up the shortcuts they took and the lies they told to secure a conviction in a high-profile case. They lied to juries. They lied to the press. And, in a most wicked and cynical way, they lied to the Nicaricos and put them on an emotional roller coaster of appeals and trials aimed not at justice but at disguising their role in railroading the innocent. The family’s loss was already unimaginable and they deserved far more timely legal closure than Dugan’s conviction 22 years after he murdered their daughter.

We remember those who spend years in prison for crimes they didn’t commit, but we should also remember the victims’ families whose pain is sharpened and prolonged by the false promises of those whom they trust to dispense justice.

Headline suggestion

The Sun-Times’ headline “Bally’s temporary casino at Medinah Temple nets $6.7 million and 80,000 visitors in first few weeks,” could have been “Visitors to Bally’s temporary casino at Medinah Temple are losing an average of $84.”

And maybe the fact that customers are very likely to lose — that the entire casino industry and the profits and tax revenues it spins off are predicated on that inevitability — is understood and even embraced by all. Maybe $84 is a fair average price to pay for an afternoon or evening of gambling and the dreams of riches it inspires. And maybe my calculation underestimates the average customer loss since the net profit would come after figuring in the costs of running the casino.

EIther way, let’s not forget that casinos are citadels of loss for most people, and this $6.7 million figure is a grim reminder.

Notes and comments from readers —lightly edited —- along with my responses

Pat O’C. — Your snarky dismissal of the accomplishments and positive impact of Ruth Bader Ginsburg with your quip “How apropos. A forever stamp to honor someone who evidently thought she was going to live forever” in an attempt to score a cheap laugh is the last straw. We need respectful dialogue and thoughtful exchange of legitimate differences of opinion, and the use of humor in expressing opinions can actually be helpful in making a point but this is not what happened here. I wish you would use the forum you created for more than self indulgent posturing. Sadly, I am totally convinced that my expressing this to you will have no impact whatsoever. I am unsubscribing.

Zorn — I’m always sad to lose a reader and you were not the only one to complain that I was disrespectful to the legacy and accomplishments of RBG. You and my other critics are evidently not of the same mind as many of my friends on the left that she badly tarnished her legacy by hanging on to her seat on the U.S. Supreme Court into her late 80s after multiple bouts with cancer. She resisted pressure to retire at age 80 when a Democratic president and senate could have appointed a successor with a similar ideological bent, and so she ended up dying when Donald Trump was president, thus giving us Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett who will undo much of what she accomplished.

I will always be angry about that. I don’t see what’s wrong with using attempted humor to make that point, and I would be glad to publish a letter from a liberal telling me why her refusal to step aside when age and health were clearly catching up to her was a good thing.

Laurence S. -- I found your defense of artificial intelligence to be inane at best. Your general idea seems to be that anything man invents is a good thing and this idea should never be stemmed. The problem is not AI. The problem is humans that most definitely will find a way to take advantage of their fellow human beings using this technology.

A dental health insurance company recently released a commercial in which Tom Hanks appears to be promoting their service. But Hanks had absolutely nothing to do with it. His voice and likeness were AI generated. What will the protections be against such things?

Zorn – What you’re talking about here are “deep fakes,” which are fraudulent and pose very different questions. When computer programs create hyper-realistic impersonations of the voices and famous people — or everyday people, for that matter— it harms both the famous person and deceives the viewer in a meaningful way.

 To date this technology isn’t all that impressive – the Tom Hanks commercial isn’t particularly persuasive and is fairly easily detectable. But, again, AI is in its infancy and we should be quite scared about what it will be able to do in the future. If video is totally untrustworthy, it will obliterate our ability to tell the truth from a lie.

Marc M. -- AI is not “trained” and does not “learn.” It has zero understanding of anything. The AI scans, parses and records. It is not gaining “knowledge.” It has zero understanding of either the inputs or the outputs. AI is not capable of being “inspired.” AI has none of the human attributes of curiosity, emotion, knowledge, or even problem recognition (i.e. it has no opinion on any moral issue, it will accept whatever it is programmed to accept). It merely performs an assembly of fragments of writing based on directions from the user, the coded rules for assembly, and rote copying of existing phrases, sentences, and paragraphs.

AI is a sophisticated plagiarism engine. It scans, copies, and assembles. Fair Use has four parts: 1) is the use commercial; 2) the nature of the original work; 3) the amount or substantiality of the original work used; 4) the effect of the use on the commercial value of the original work. AI currently copies everything, reuses it without limitation, does not provide attribution or compensation, and the output is not transformative.

AI will certainly continue to improve to convincingly imitate thought, particularly in areas where humans have mental limitations (e.g. no one has read every novel and can be entertained by a clever knock off of an author/authors they don't know). It will find many socially positive uses. But that is no excuse for shrugging off the responsibility to at least attempt to properly constrain the use of the technology.

Zorn – Your critique gets to some knotty philosophical questions about what it means to “learn” or, for that matter, to be “inspired.” Machines do “learn” in that, say, chess programs recognize mistakes they make when they lose and don’t make those mistakes again. That’s certainly one definition of learning.

What is “inspiration” other than recognizing and making connections or seeing previously unexplored sequences of events?

 As I noted, we don’t even really know what consciousness is, and defining creativity – much less teaching it – is very difficult. We tend to fall back on complimenting ourselves as unique beings because he have qualities and capabilities that we don’t really understand. At least not yet.

 No, AI can’t fall in love, but it can generate art that convincingly evokes falling in love. It can’t have a moral sense but it can be programmed to analyze problems in a given moral framework – which is kind of how people are, when you think about it.

 I disagree that AI writing is “plagiarism.” If I read everything by Scott Turow and John Grisham and use the insights gleaned to create a legal thriller, it’s not plagiarism unless I crib phrases from their work. 

 I’m not saying I don’t worry about this technology, but I do consider efforts to constrain it to be feckless.

Peter Z. -- If a piece of fiction is AI generated, it should be labeled as being AI generated as full disclosure to the reader.

 Zorn – I’m not sure how we would begin to enforce this idea or why you think it's important, except that the idea that AI content can be better — more engaging, more moving — or perhaps just indistinguishable from human-generated content deeply offends the vanity of our species. If you like a song, does it matter if the voice is auto-tuned or the drums and strings generated by machines?

John K. Regarding “Some theories as to why crime in Chicago now seems more alarming than ever,” it's small consolation to residents that they fear crime more because it is easier to videotape it as it happens. 

 Are you implying that we shouldn't freak out and should just buck up and accept crime in the city?

Zorn — Well, no, not at all. It’s a scourge and job one of the mayor and his police department is to increase and enhance public safety. But its also good to keep it in perspective, as panic is seldom productive.

Patrick —bRegarding “Bylines at last on CWBChicago!” There's still something odd about the lack of transparency at the city’s most influential crime blog. Yes it's great there's one byline on some stories and a skimpy bio of the managing partner, but I can't find anything online other than the CWB bio on “Tim Hecke.” Maybe he scrubbed out his digital fingerprints? And I'd still like to know who's funding the site. So I still read CWB with caution and doubt.

 Zorn – As I’ve written before, I have not found CWB to be inaccurate and the site says it is funded by readers who donate. I would think that a publication or media outlet with more staff resources than I have would do a bit of digging to get the answers to these and other questions, especially given how local media often uses CWB as a tip sheet.

Rick W. — The Democratic presidential bench you suggest is full of lightweights, with the possible exception of Amy Klobuchar. No one else has anything resembling a national presence, except maybe Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, whom I love, but who has never held an elective office higher than mayor of a medium-sized city.

Zorn – Lightweights? I disagree. My list of potential replacements for President Joe Biden --Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker along with Klobuchar and Buttigieg come to mind –includes quite a few people with “national presence,” whatever exactly that means. And among recent presidents, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama didn’t have a lot of “national presence” before being elected, and none was as intellectually lightweight as Donald Trump.

Marc M. — I would add former Michigan governor and current Energy Secretary. Jennifer Granholm to your list of Democrats who could take over for Biden.

Zorn – She’s impressive, yes, but she was born in Canada to Canadian parents — that is undisputed! — and therefore not eligible.

David L . — Just to provide some feedback from the conservative side, my clear preference for presidential candidate has been former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley from the beginning. She governed extremely well with relatively high approval rating and gained valuable foreign policy experience while Ambassador at the United Nations. She strikes me as very intelligent and articulate, and has a compelling personal story as the daughter of first generation legal immigrants to our country. I have contributed to her campaign and I have posted many comments favorable to her on various media.

But, having said that, if as I fear, Trump is the GOP nominee, I would feel compelled to vote for him against President Biden. As far as Trump’s policies, I anticipate they will be very similar to the policies during his first term of office which I believe were very good for our country and everyone in it. While your overwhelmingly left leaning readership may excoriate me for that statement, I want to point out that outside the liberal bubble, President Biden is widely viewed as inept, suffering advancing cognitive deficit with failing policies, spectacularly so in border security, and likely involved in corrupt influence peddling through Hunter. His approval rating as President has been decidedly negative for quite some time. Most national polls are showing a pretty much tie race between Trump and Biden, and a Washington Post poll last week even showed Trump with a 9% advantage. So brand me with whatever disparaging label you wish, but the fact is that my statement puts me in tune with half of our country.

 Zorn — A fair minded person would certainly not simply pass along with a shrug the nonsense that “half the country” thinks. It’s similar to Trump’s frequent statements that begin, “A lot of people are saying …” Truth is not a popularity contest. 

I don't buy the hankie-twisting about Biden's cognitive abilities -- Trump says bizarre things all the time, like that Biden might start World War II and that he ran against George H.W. Bush. I would bet on Biden over Trump any day in any test of knowledge or acuity. Or in a footrace. And, my God, corruption and children? Please. Don't get me started on the grifters in the Trump family. Plus, of course, there seems to be no evidence of corrupt influence peddling by Biden despite all the handwaving and throat clearing on the right.

Still, I get it. Trump will blunder his way into supporting some conservative positions -- on abortion, for instance -- even though he drove up the deficit by cutting taxes on the rich and shattered the norms of our constitutional republic. Good for the country? Good lord, man he nearly destroyed it and is likely to render it unrecognizable if reelected.

 I'd vote for Roseanne Barr for president over any Republican I can think of. And I respect your support for Haley over Trump at this stage. Decent Republicans ought to be fighting like hell for the soul of their party, because Trump is, at heart, a fascist dictator. You do understand that, don't you? I'm sure you hope that Congress and courts will keep him in check if God forbid he's elected again, but he is pretty clearly a deeply vile, shallow, vengeful autocrat. If you really think our country would be better off long term with him back in the White House then hold your nose, cross your fingers and pull the lever.

David L.— Following up on your questions about drag shows: Why is it that out of all the different, shall we call them "special interest" groups, that men in drag have such a burning desire to engage in drag in front of little children? No other group appears to be demanding this or even interested in doing so. And that's the sole reason that drag has become a cultural war issue.

Laurence S. -- The main objection to drag shows seems to be the presence of children. Let's put this in a larger perspective. I want children banned from watching John Wayne films. They don't need to be taught that all of life's problems are solved by blasting away with weapons or punching people’s light out. And they should not be shown inane caricatures of women and anyone not white.

 I can give a ton of other examples of so-called acceptable movies, literature, and books that have the possibility of teaching children the wrong things. But here's the rub. I grew up watching lots of action features with violence when I was young. To this day I have neither shot anyone or knocked anyone out with punches. What it really comes down to is upbringing. My experience teaches me that children will not become either gay or cross dressers merely by attending drag shows. What studies have been done showing that kids watching drag shows grow up to be what is considered abnormal? Parents can explain to them just what is going on and why. And that's the real point here. Why are so many in our society trying so hard to raise everyone else's children while at the same time yelling about parental rights?

Poll watching: The airport etiquette question and kitchen terminology

I’m surprised that a majority of readers were sympathetic to the late arriving passenger when I passed along this question from Peter Sagal last week. Especially given how strange and arbitary the boarding process seems to be.

On one of flights over the weekend we were in an early boarding group and took our assigned seats on the aisle and the middle seat. The passenger with the window seat next to us was in a much later boarding group and had to squeeze past us —not a terribly big deal, but we had to stand in the aisle, blocking other boarding passengers, to let him get to this seat. In what world did this make any sense?

Meanswhile, here is another recent click poll result.

Ya gotta see these tweets!

Here are some funny visual images I've come across recently on social media — increasingly not on Twitter, I have to say. Enjoy, then evaluate:

Vote for your favorite. I will disqualify any tweets I later find out used digitally altered photos to make the joke. I’ll share the winner in Thursday’s main edition.

Usage note: To me, “tweet” has become a generic term for a short post on social media.

There’s still time to vote in the conventional Tweet of the Week poll!

Thank you for supporting the Picayune Sentinel. To help this publication grow, please consider spreading the word to friends, family, associates, neighbors and agreeable strangers.

.