Speaker 1: Welcome to Righteous Convictions with Jason Flam the podcast where
Speaker 1: I get to speak with people who see the wrong
Speaker 1: in the world and are driven to make it right.
Speaker 1: I guess today spent most of her academic career teaching
Speaker 1: and writing on issues of domestic violence and victimization, but
Speaker 1: after more than three decades in she met someone whose
Speaker 1: story of wrongful conviction opened her eyes to another kind
Speaker 1: of victim. I found that people who have been wrongly
Speaker 1: convicted have been really ignored in the space of victimology.
Speaker 1: The key differences in a domestic violence situation, the batterer
Speaker 1: is typically a significant other. In a wrongful conviction, the
Speaker 1: abuser is our criminal justice system. But the impact and
Speaker 1: the effects of the abuse really are quite parallel. Right
Speaker 1: now on Righteous Convictions, Dr Nikki Ali Jackson, Welcome back
Speaker 1: to Righteous Convictions with Jason Plant. My guest today has
Speaker 1: a PhD in victimization and as a criminal justice professor
Speaker 1: and warrior at Purdue University Northwest in Indiana. She started
Speaker 1: her career focused mainly on domestic violence. In fact, in
Speaker 1: two thousand and seven she published the first ever encyclopedia
Speaker 1: of domestic violence, but in two thousand sixteen she experienced
Speaker 1: an Aha moment, and I'll let her tell you about
Speaker 1: that later, But that moment led her to a career
Speaker 1: pivot that bridges the gap between victim and Asian and
Speaker 1: mass incarceration. Now she's hard at work writing some of
Speaker 1: the wrongs that come about as a result of rawful convictions.
Speaker 1: Dr Nikki Ali Jackson, Welcome to Righteous Convictions. Thank you. So,
Speaker 1: NICKI tell us how you got started on this incredible journey.
Speaker 1: Start at the very beginning, if you would. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: I was actually I was born in Pakistan and my
Speaker 1: father is a professor, and we end up coming to
Speaker 1: Canada for him to finish up his PhD. And then
Speaker 1: he got a job at Ball State University. We moved
Speaker 1: to Muncy when I was I think I was five,
Speaker 1: and so I pretty much grew up in Muncy. And
Speaker 1: my father is an academic, so I grew up in
Speaker 1: this whole sphere of academia. My uncles are professors, so
Speaker 1: I was very fortunate. I went to a high school
Speaker 1: that was a laboratory school and my teachers were all professors,
Speaker 1: So again, academia, it was just right in front of
Speaker 1: my face. So I went to college and I started
Speaker 1: off as a social work major, and I recognized that
Speaker 1: that really wasn't what was of interest to me. And
Speaker 1: I end up taking a criminal justice course literally down
Speaker 1: the hall, and that was it. I had just like
Speaker 1: fell fallen in love with this course, and I changed
Speaker 1: my major after one criminal justice class. And then you
Speaker 1: end up as doctor Jackson. So how does that title
Speaker 1: figure into it? So I have my PhD in sociology
Speaker 1: with a criminal justice kind of concentration and my dissertation
Speaker 1: and my research has really focused on domestic violence. That's
Speaker 1: really where I've spent the bulk of my career is
Speaker 1: in the space of domestic violence. And you've published a
Speaker 1: couple of books on the sociological and psychological factors surrounding
Speaker 1: domestic violence as well. So what is it about this
Speaker 1: field that fascinates you? Particularly what I wanted to do
Speaker 1: in the space of domestic violence? And I think this
Speaker 1: is just who I am. I know that there's research
Speaker 1: out there, but I know that there's more work to
Speaker 1: be done. And back in the day, when I started
Speaker 1: doing research in the early nineties on DV issues, I
Speaker 1: recognized that males had been ignored. I recognized that same
Speaker 1: sex partners were were ignored in the in the literature. Therefore,
Speaker 1: I wanted to bring something to life which acknowledged a
Speaker 1: host of different types of victims of domestic violence. Keep
Speaker 1: in mind, when I was in college, I started in
Speaker 1: very long time ago. Domestic violence wasn't something people were
Speaker 1: talking about. Shelters were just starting to emerge. We just
Speaker 1: didn't know a whole lot about it. So back in
Speaker 1: in the early eighties, this was really a new area
Speaker 1: of victimology. So fast forward, you end up with the
Speaker 1: wor you're doing now in the wrong conviction space, and
Speaker 1: it seems like you made kind of a sudden career
Speaker 1: pivot here, although I'm sure there's all kinds of connections
Speaker 1: we can talk about and maybe you can help us
Speaker 1: connect those dots. So what is it that brought you here?
Speaker 1: I think I've always had this real care for people
Speaker 1: who are victimized, and I found that people who have
Speaker 1: been wrongly convicted have been really ignored in the space
Speaker 1: of victimology. And that is why I think my work,
Speaker 1: my research, all of the media that I do is
Speaker 1: really important because I want people to understand that they,
Speaker 1: just like domestic violence victims, have been victimized the key differences.
Speaker 1: In a domestic violence situation, the batterer is typically a
Speaker 1: significant other. In a wrongful conviction, the abuser is our
Speaker 1: criminal justice system. But the impact and the effects of
Speaker 1: the abuse really are parallel. And then, as I understand that,
Speaker 1: there was one case that really got under your skin
Speaker 1: and got your full attention and sent you down the
Speaker 1: path here on right now, tell us about Willie Donald. Sure, So,
Speaker 1: about six and a half years ago, I was reading
Speaker 1: an article in a newspaper about a man who had
Speaker 1: been wrongly convicted and released here in Indiana. He had
Speaker 1: spent almost twenty four years in prison for robberies and a
Speaker 1: a homicide he did not commit. I couldn't believe what
Speaker 1: I was reading. I've been a professor for so many years,
Speaker 1: and all of a sudden I understood that people had
Speaker 1: been wrongly convicted. But for whatever reason, this case just
Speaker 1: like literally stood out. Maybe seeing a picture of him
Speaker 1: in his prison uniform, um looked really um just it
Speaker 1: was a very sad photo to look at. He was
Speaker 1: super vulnerable, and I just I wanted to know more
Speaker 1: about this man. I called our prosecutor, who was a
Speaker 1: very good friend of mine. He was at my wedding
Speaker 1: twenty seven years ago, and I asked him, I said, Bernie,
Speaker 1: did this guy commit this crime? And he said he
Speaker 1: did not innocent, and I asked him, what are you doing? What? What?
Speaker 1: What is the state doing? And after I screamed, you
Speaker 1: locked up the wrong guy. Oh my god, you locked
Speaker 1: up the wrong guy for twenty four years, and he's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: we did. And I'm like, what are you gonna do
Speaker 1: for him? And they're really The answer was nothing, There's
Speaker 1: nothing we're gonna do for him. And I was outraged.
Speaker 1: I have to tell you, it takes a lot to
Speaker 1: get me that angry. I was angry. I was on fire.
Speaker 1: You lock a kid up at twenty two, you release
Speaker 1: him at the age of forty six, and there's nothing,
Speaker 1: there's zero you're doing to help this man. It was
Speaker 1: just it was mind boggling. And that's when I reached
Speaker 1: out to the attorney and asked to meet with Mr
Speaker 1: Donald UM and thankfully Mr Donald agreed to meet with
Speaker 1: me and UM. We met in a diner, and UM
Speaker 1: I learned of what had happened to him, his entire ordeal. Um. Actually,
Speaker 1: I learned pretty I thought I learned it all, but
Speaker 1: every time I speak to him, I learned another little
Speaker 1: piece of the of the ordeal. And I get more
Speaker 1: annoyed and more aggravated every time I hear something um
Speaker 1: about his case or other people's cases. So Mr Donald
Speaker 1: shared um the fact that he had been wrongly convicted
Speaker 1: on a mistake and witness identification. And Mr Donald's picture
Speaker 1: was in this photo lineup, and it should the photo
Speaker 1: shouldn't have even been in there. It was a photo
Speaker 1: from when he was picked up by the police for
Speaker 1: what they believed was an auto theft. When the police
Speaker 1: recognized that the car had not been stolen, the damage
Speaker 1: had already been done. They had already taken his photo
Speaker 1: and they put it into wherever they store it. And
Speaker 1: then they brought that photo out into this lineup, and
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, two women picked Mr Donald out, even
Speaker 1: though he did not match the description of the actual
Speaker 1: perpetrator based on five different witnesses testimony. I mean, five
Speaker 1: different witnesses had described him in a whole different way
Speaker 1: than what Mr Donald looked like. All right, so you've
Speaker 1: just met with this guy, he's told you this this
Speaker 1: unreal story. You've seen what happened to him. What did
Speaker 1: you do next? Well, the first thing I did was
Speaker 1: sitting my my truck and I just broke down crying.
Speaker 1: After I met Mr Donald, literally left the diner, sat
Speaker 1: in my truck and was like, oh my god, this
Speaker 1: man has been locked up for twenty four years. He
Speaker 1: doesn't probably trust, he doesn't know me. How am I
Speaker 1: going to gain his trust? What am I gonna do?
Speaker 1: Remember I worked with domestic violence victims, not people who've
Speaker 1: been wrongly convicted. And yet here I'm sitting at this
Speaker 1: bread us with this man making all of these promises
Speaker 1: to him. I'm going to get a compensation bill started
Speaker 1: here in Indiana. I'm gonna do X, Y and Z.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna do this. And I'm sitting in my car
Speaker 1: literally having a complete ugly cry because I don't know
Speaker 1: what I'm gonna do, how I'm gonna do it. But
Speaker 1: I made a promise to Mr Donald, and I keep
Speaker 1: my word. The Pacers Foundation is a proud supporter of
Speaker 1: this episode of rawfle Conviction and of the Last Mile organization,
Speaker 1: which provides business and tech training to help incarcerated individuals
Speaker 1: successfully and permanently re enter the workforce. The Pacers Foundation
Speaker 1: is committed to improving the lives of Hoosiers across Indiana,
Speaker 1: supporting organizations that are dedicated primarily to helping young people
Speaker 1: and students. For more information on the work of the
Speaker 1: Pacers Foundation or the Last Bile Program, visit Pacers Foundation
Speaker 1: dot org or the Last Mile dot org. Once I
Speaker 1: heard about Mr Donald's ordeal and the fact that there
Speaker 1: were no reparations for this man or any man or
Speaker 1: woman in the state of Indiana who had been exonerated,
Speaker 1: I just couldn't believe what I was hearing. So what
Speaker 1: I did is I literally got home. I emailed Barry
Speaker 1: Scheck with the Innocence Project and said, I need some
Speaker 1: help here. I didn't think he was going to respond
Speaker 1: to me because he doesn't know me and doesn't know
Speaker 1: my university. And in the next morning I got a
Speaker 1: response from Mr Check and said, thank you for being
Speaker 1: a voice for the voiceless in Indiana, and our office
Speaker 1: will help you in any way we can. I decided
Speaker 1: I wanted to reach senators and I sit onto prison boards.
Speaker 1: So what I did was I went up to my
Speaker 1: prison boards and looked to see what senators are sitting
Speaker 1: on the board. So I emailed the senator and I
Speaker 1: emailed another senator and a state rep. And had them
Speaker 1: come to a dinner before I even talked to the
Speaker 1: Innocence Project. So I decided, we're going to meet him
Speaker 1: one day. I'm gonna bring three exonorees with me and
Speaker 1: they're going to tell their stories too, who were from
Speaker 1: Illinois who had been the victims of the Chicago torture case.
Speaker 1: Once spent thirty even years wrongly convicted, another was twenty
Speaker 1: eight years in prison. And then I had Mr Donald,
Speaker 1: who was still really nervous. You have to also understand
Speaker 1: Mr Donald had only been out of prison for a
Speaker 1: few days after I met him. I mean, it wasn't
Speaker 1: very long, you know, after he got out when I
Speaker 1: met him. So you've got three legislators, three exonorees including
Speaker 1: Mr Donald, and you've got an attorney from the Innocence
Speaker 1: Project and you're all sitting down together. That's quite an
Speaker 1: extraordinary group. What happened at that dinner and what was
Speaker 1: the outcome? We talked about the problem and what's needed
Speaker 1: here in Indiana. One of the senators really was interested
Speaker 1: in well, they all were interested, but one took action
Speaker 1: and he said, I'm going to connect you with some
Speaker 1: folks at Indianapolis. So he took me to the capitol
Speaker 1: and he let me speak to all these different people
Speaker 1: about what I wanted done here in Indiana and through
Speaker 1: the Innocence Project of New York. One of their attorneys,
Speaker 1: Beth Powers, she came to Indiana and she met with
Speaker 1: me and we worked on We had conversations basically about
Speaker 1: what needed to be done in terms of a compensation packet.
Speaker 1: After hearing about Mr Donald's or deal, I realized that
Speaker 1: they needed money first and foremost right and initially the
Speaker 1: bill um that was drafted was for dollars per year
Speaker 1: of wrongful conviction. I told them I was not going
Speaker 1: to accept that. They also initially in the bill had
Speaker 1: it where the exonrees, our current exonres would not be
Speaker 1: eligible for compensation. It's only for future exonrees. That's unacceptable.
Speaker 1: So a year later, came back to the table, met
Speaker 1: one of the authors of the bill, State Rep. Greg
Speaker 1: Stuart Walt, who was very passionate about making things right
Speaker 1: for people who've been wrongly convicted. He and another Senator
Speaker 1: drafted the bill. Beth Powers flew in from New York.
Speaker 1: I came and I invited our prosecutor from Lake County
Speaker 1: to come. I thought it would be really important to
Speaker 1: have a prosecutor sitting at that table. So we all
Speaker 1: sat around and we talked about what the tenants of
Speaker 1: the bill should look like. I didn't agree with some
Speaker 1: pieces of the bill, and I was told that, um,
Speaker 1: even though I wasn't happy with some of the the
Speaker 1: elements of the bill, that it would not get past
Speaker 1: if I added the pieces that I wanted particularly, and
Speaker 1: that bill ended up being HB eleven fifty, which was
Speaker 1: signed into law in twenty nineteen, making Indiana one of
Speaker 1: thirty five states with a law to compensate the roughly convicted,
Speaker 1: which of course still means that there's fifteen that don't
Speaker 1: have one, which is absolutely mind blowing and terrible. Anyway,
Speaker 1: as great as it is that that law was finally
Speaker 1: passed and signed, you've said that you feel the bill
Speaker 1: is still flawed. What are some of the things you'd
Speaker 1: want changed. I did not like the fact that these
Speaker 1: axonrerees would have to choose between mean compensation and litigation.
Speaker 1: I absolutely still and angry about that piece of the bill.
Speaker 1: We are re victimizing these victims that we've already stolen
Speaker 1: so many years from and I wanted it to be
Speaker 1: where they get compensation from the State of Indiana, but
Speaker 1: they also were able to pursue civil litigation. I explained
Speaker 1: to the people sitting at the table that listen, if
Speaker 1: you and I got hit by a car, we have
Speaker 1: the right to sue that driver. We have that right.
Speaker 1: We were injured and we want to be made as
Speaker 1: whole as we can through civil litigation. We are now
Speaker 1: telling axonorees in the State of Indiana, we're not going
Speaker 1: to make you whole through through litigation. So what's really
Speaker 1: happening at the end of the day is axonrees have
Speaker 1: to now choose between except in compensation or accepting a
Speaker 1: settlement or whatever they would get from a lawsuit. Um,
Speaker 1: they can't do both. And I was told that's because
Speaker 1: it's double dipping. I don't view it as double dipping.
Speaker 1: I think there's different parties that have injured them, and
Speaker 1: the state has injured them, and then there's also individual
Speaker 1: actors and agencies that have injured them. And I think
Speaker 1: those actors and those agencies have been given a passive.
Speaker 1: You will because if Exonoy takes compensation, no one's going
Speaker 1: to be held accountable in that particular agency that may
Speaker 1: have caused the wrongful conviction. That is outrageous. So I
Speaker 1: would love to see us come back to the table
Speaker 1: and remove that piece. And so those individuals who harmed
Speaker 1: Mr Donald or any exon e E. In the state
Speaker 1: of Indiana intentionally, they should be held accountable. We held
Speaker 1: a man in prison for something he didn't do, but
Speaker 1: then the actors who intentionally did something, we're not doing
Speaker 1: anything to them. That doesn't seem fair to me. So
Speaker 1: when you say actors, you're talking about the prosecutors here
Speaker 1: who are pretty much immune from being sued in these cases. Right, Yes,
Speaker 1: So I'm not a fan of absolute immunity for prosecutors.
Speaker 1: I think prosecutors they are untouchable. And I think that
Speaker 1: is a problem of a prosecutor who's a friend of
Speaker 1: mine said to me, Nikki, you have to understand that
Speaker 1: if we go with the absolute immunity, prosecutors are going
Speaker 1: to be afraid to prosecute. And I said, okay, so
Speaker 1: what's the problem. I think that's okay, then maybe it's
Speaker 1: going to scare you enough to say I'm only going
Speaker 1: to prosecute a case where I have, without question probable
Speaker 1: cause that this individual committed this crime, and unfortunately police,
Speaker 1: some police and prosecutors are very tunnel vision, and that's
Speaker 1: how we end up with one or two of our
Speaker 1: prison population being actually innocent. That's a huge problem. And
Speaker 1: I don't think prosecutors go into their careers saying, oh,
Speaker 1: I want to convict innocent people. I don't think that
Speaker 1: at all. But I do believe it happens, and it
Speaker 1: shouldn't happen. And I think there are times when prosecutors
Speaker 1: have information and they withhold that information. We know that now, um,
Speaker 1: and when you commit a Brady violation, you should be
Speaker 1: held accountable. You shouldn't have that absolute immunity. And I
Speaker 1: believe that the person you injured you should be able
Speaker 1: to sue you. You can charge them criminally, but they
Speaker 1: can't come back and get you civilly because you went
Speaker 1: after them knowing that they probably were innocent. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying prosecutors do that routinely, but I do
Speaker 1: believe it happens, and I believe it happens more than
Speaker 1: it should. So that's one fixed that's absolutely needed. What
Speaker 1: else do you feel needs to be fixed regarding this legislation?
Speaker 1: The other piece that, you know that's problematic with our
Speaker 1: compensation bill is the actual application of the bill. Um.
Speaker 1: So the way that exonorees would if they decided to
Speaker 1: take compensation, they have to fill out an application. And
Speaker 1: you can imagine this isn't really an easy task for
Speaker 1: somebody who's been locked up for decades, who's probably trying
Speaker 1: to navigate a computer learning how to you know, Google,
Speaker 1: use word and everything else. But you know it's all electronic.
Speaker 1: I'm sure you could probably downloaded and print it. But
Speaker 1: again some axonorees will have to have some help, right,
Speaker 1: But regardless of that part of it, the reality is
Speaker 1: the axonre ee has to prove his or her factual innocence.
Speaker 1: Think about that, The exonary has to prove his or
Speaker 1: her factual innocence. So what the state is saying is
Speaker 1: that if you want to receive compensation, the burden is
Speaker 1: on you to prove that you're factually innocent. Well, do
Speaker 1: you think axsonorees have money for DNA experts or other
Speaker 1: forensic experts. Know they don't. So basically what we're doing,
Speaker 1: they're being retried for this crime. They've already been exonerated
Speaker 1: and now we're saying, if you want to receive the
Speaker 1: fifty dollars per year of your wrongful incarceration, then you're
Speaker 1: going to have to prove to this board that you
Speaker 1: were wrongly convicted and you are factually innocent. That's a
Speaker 1: heavy burden for an exonery. It's a really big hurdle,
Speaker 1: and I would believe that it might detour some honorees
Speaker 1: from applying. Well, I mean, I I just don't understand
Speaker 1: why it's so challenging. You know, there aren't that many eggshonorees.
Speaker 1: Will there be more coming out of Indiana prisons? Of
Speaker 1: course there will be, hopefully there will be. We know
Speaker 1: there are innocent men and women sitting in prison. We
Speaker 1: need to get them out of prison. But again, it's
Speaker 1: very difficult to get them out. It's easy to get
Speaker 1: them in, but it's really a challenge to get them out.
Speaker 1: I sit on to prison boards and last week we
Speaker 1: had a board meeting and I was at the Indiana
Speaker 1: State Prison, and I was very grateful that the warden
Speaker 1: allowed me to speak about this new initiative that I
Speaker 1: have established. But one of the things that I wanted
Speaker 1: to impress upon all of the board members sitting at
Speaker 1: the Indiana State Prison, including wardens from other prisons, is
Speaker 1: that we have innocent people sitting in prison, and because
Speaker 1: we have innocent people sitting in prison, we need to
Speaker 1: do better and we've got to make sure that we
Speaker 1: help these folks get out of prison. And I heard
Speaker 1: somebody say, well, we don't have that many, and I
Speaker 1: was like, wow, one is too many. I mean you
Speaker 1: should have seen my face, Like really, I mean, this
Speaker 1: wasn't a private conversation, it wasn't during the entire board meeting,
Speaker 1: but somebody just did say to me, it doesn't happen
Speaker 1: that often. That's really a really horrific statement. It's like,
Speaker 1: what are you saying to me? What if it was
Speaker 1: your mother, what if it was your brother, what if
Speaker 1: it was your child? That one would be too many?
Speaker 1: And do you feel like you got through to them?
Speaker 1: I mean, did what you were saying actually land and
Speaker 1: didn't make any difference? I think I I think I
Speaker 1: think I think I got to some of them. I
Speaker 1: think some of them were really listening to me um,
Speaker 1: and I don't think they understood not. I mean, obviously
Speaker 1: they all care, they're human beings and they do care,
Speaker 1: but I think they just didn't understand that this is
Speaker 1: a real problem. And you know they refer to the
Speaker 1: inmates as offenders, right, that's what we we go from
Speaker 1: prisoners to offenders to inmates. We have all these different
Speaker 1: terms for people who are locked up in in prisons,
Speaker 1: and when somebody uses the term offender, I stopped them
Speaker 1: because they're not all offenders. They're not They're all prisoners,
Speaker 1: but they're not all offenders. So I don't like the
Speaker 1: use of the word offender to describe people who are
Speaker 1: in a carceral state. Okay, let's talk numbers, because I
Speaker 1: know you've crunched these statistics. How many wrongfully convicted are
Speaker 1: currently incarcerated conservatively, Conservatively, there's about a hundred sixty six
Speaker 1: thousand people who are sitting in our prisons who are
Speaker 1: and this is so important for your audience to understand.
Speaker 1: These are people who are factually innocent, not that they
Speaker 1: have they're they're sitting in prison because the police didn't
Speaker 1: properly mirandize them, that they were wrongly convicted because of
Speaker 1: a technicality. They're in prison and they didn't commit the crime.
Speaker 1: That nothing to do with it. And that's this is
Speaker 1: a low guestimate about a hundred sixty six thousand people.
Speaker 1: And that's out of a total which this number should
Speaker 1: shock everyone into action, over two million people in prison, right,
Speaker 1: I think we've dropped to two point one Now we're
Speaker 1: down to two point one d because of COVID, So
Speaker 1: we we have lost some UM, which is a good
Speaker 1: thing UM because we we did see releases of inmates
Speaker 1: during UM during the COVID period. So the last I
Speaker 1: looked a few months ago, there were two point one million.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not gonna lie. This wasn't really an
Speaker 1: interest of mine when I was in school, when I
Speaker 1: was teaching. I mean, as a professor for decades, I
Speaker 1: should have been talking more about these issues. And until
Speaker 1: I met Mr Donald, I don't think it really hit me.
Speaker 1: And here I am somebody who's you know, supposed to
Speaker 1: be you know, educated and as an expert, has a PhD.
Speaker 1: And if I don't get it, how could a lay
Speaker 1: person get it? And that is why it is so
Speaker 1: important for for this show. This is why it's important
Speaker 1: for the media to share these stories of of people
Speaker 1: who've been wrong be convicted, so people can better understand
Speaker 1: that it does happen, and it can happen. To anybody,
Speaker 1: it's really important. I mean, I take all of my
Speaker 1: classes now, and somewhere in that class I discussed the
Speaker 1: miscarriages of justice that are happening within our criminal justice system.
Speaker 1: In the old days, I talked about how the system works,
Speaker 1: and now I talked about how the system is supposed
Speaker 1: to work. So my students understand the system is fallible,
Speaker 1: and the system is fallible because humans are fallible. People
Speaker 1: are fallible, And I think because we are fallible, we
Speaker 1: have to open our eyes and say, Okay, we've made
Speaker 1: an error. Now how do we fix this error? How
Speaker 1: do we right or wrong? And I think that's the
Speaker 1: part that's hard for a lot of folks to wrap
Speaker 1: their heads around. You know. It's people feel ashamed, people
Speaker 1: feel guilty that somebody has been wrongly convicted. I've had
Speaker 1: prosecutors say, well, you know, we get it right most
Speaker 1: to the time. Well that's not a good response to me.
Speaker 1: That's unacceptable. Most of the time. That's unacceptable. Tell that
Speaker 1: to Mr Donald, and tell that to every other exonery
Speaker 1: and every person who's sitting in prison right now, who
Speaker 1: is factually innocent most of the time. Doesn't cut it.
Speaker 1: And I think I hope. I believe through my voice
Speaker 1: things have started to change here in Indiana and people
Speaker 1: are starting to listen, and people are starting to say
Speaker 1: there is a problem. These senators and state reps before
Speaker 1: that dinner, they didn't think about these things, and they said,
Speaker 1: we didn't even know this was happening. We didn't even
Speaker 1: understand it. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
Speaker 1: And so through education, we can make a difference and
Speaker 1: we can change what's happening. And I do. I firmly
Speaker 1: believe that. And this is why I come and I
Speaker 1: talked to you, and I go and talk to other
Speaker 1: people in media because it's so important to let the
Speaker 1: world know that. Listen, not only are we wrongly convicting
Speaker 1: innocent people, but we continue to victimize those people when
Speaker 1: they get out of prison. And that has to end.
Speaker 1: Once we realized we walked up the wrong person, what
Speaker 1: we should be doing. We should be supporting them and
Speaker 1: assisting them, just like we do other victims. We do
Speaker 1: that for rime victims. Why aren't we doing that for
Speaker 1: victims of a miscarriage of justice? So tell us about
Speaker 1: some of the things that are going on now. The
Speaker 1: work you're doing with the Center for Justice and Post
Speaker 1: Exoneration Assistance and how you got that started. I understand
Speaker 1: you've got a little help from a very close brandom
Speaker 1: mind somebody really admire. So thank you Jason for the
Speaker 1: introduction to Mr Steve Simon, owner of the Indiana Pacers um.
Speaker 1: Your kind introduction really helped me change what I could
Speaker 1: do in terms of helping exonorees here and Indianna. So
Speaker 1: Mr Simon contacted me and said he was very interested
Speaker 1: in the work that I was doing. And when I
Speaker 1: went to meet him at the Pacers office and I
Speaker 1: showed him all the letters that I had received for help,
Speaker 1: I told him I can't do this alone. Consequently, he
Speaker 1: offered to help fund this. I guess he gave me
Speaker 1: some seed money to start the center, and the university
Speaker 1: also helped so we could open up the center, which
Speaker 1: we did. Uh. The center is called the Center for
Speaker 1: Justice and Post Exoneration Assistance, and we look at a
Speaker 1: host of different things. But really there's four things that
Speaker 1: we're we're doing. One is clearly we're reviewing cases that
Speaker 1: are brought to our attention, and Mr Donald is our
Speaker 1: project manager. There's no better lens than an exonoree in
Speaker 1: investigating these claims. The second piece that we're doing is education.
Speaker 1: As you know, Professor, so education is important, and I
Speaker 1: believe education is the key to change. So we will
Speaker 1: be hosting forums and we will be doing media things
Speaker 1: like this to inform the public of what is happening.
Speaker 1: The other thing we're working on is policy reform. There's
Speaker 1: a lot that needs to be changed here in our
Speaker 1: state and in other states. So I'm hoping that we're
Speaker 1: going to be a model, a good model for other
Speaker 1: states to implement their own changes. One of the things
Speaker 1: that I would like to do, for example, is to
Speaker 1: see that the read technique is not used, particularly with juveniles.
Speaker 1: I'd like to see it not used for anybody. But um,
Speaker 1: I know that's going to be impossible, but it would
Speaker 1: be great if police officers couldn't lie to those they're interrogating.
Speaker 1: And I Illinois just passed a bill where they prohibit
Speaker 1: police officers from lying uting deceptive techniques to get a
Speaker 1: false confession from somebody or any confession, right, So I'd
Speaker 1: love to see that happen here in Indiana. But there's
Speaker 1: all sorts of other things that need to be changed. Um.
Speaker 1: We're working on looking at the thirteenth Amendment where we
Speaker 1: want to abolish slavery here in our state as well
Speaker 1: as the country. So I actually sit on a board
Speaker 1: called Free at Last Coalition dot org, where we have people,
Speaker 1: very influential people, um, who are working and fighting very
Speaker 1: hard in their states and at a federal level, so
Speaker 1: we can remove that piece of the thirteenth Amendment which
Speaker 1: allows for convicted people to to really to engage in
Speaker 1: involuntary servitude. That has to be removed. So that's the
Speaker 1: other piece that we're working on. Another piece that we're
Speaker 1: working on is obviously divide assistance to those who have
Speaker 1: been exonerated um. In fact, right now I have a
Speaker 1: guy his car got hit a couple of weeks ago,
Speaker 1: and he doesn't have a car, and so we are
Speaker 1: helping pay for the repairs of his vehicle. The other
Speaker 1: piece that we're doing that I don't believe any center
Speaker 1: in the world is doing this, is that we're offering
Speaker 1: services to family members of Axon are ees. They are
Speaker 1: the forgotten victims of a wrongful conviction. I want to
Speaker 1: be mindful and respectful that there are children, there are spouses,
Speaker 1: there are parents who suffered alongside the axonoree and many
Speaker 1: of them are still suffering. So part of our work
Speaker 1: to the center is to help any family member who
Speaker 1: may need help in terms of mental health support, um
Speaker 1: even financial counseling, financial advising. Whatever we can do, we
Speaker 1: we well. We are working on creating an assessment to
Speaker 1: see what we can do to help. And we're going
Speaker 1: to bring these exonorees and their family members together to
Speaker 1: recognize them here and in Sienna and say you have
Speaker 1: not been forgotten. You are just as important. That's amazing.
Speaker 1: And for our listeners who want to help or show
Speaker 1: their support or want to get some support for that matter,
Speaker 1: because it works both ways. We'll put the contact information
Speaker 1: and links to the websites and all of that stuff
Speaker 1: in our bio. But before we go on, I want
Speaker 1: to let our listeners know about next week's very special guest,
Speaker 1: Brittany White. Brittany went from incarceration and Alabama prison to
Speaker 1: being an organizing fellow with Harvard Law School. I mean what,
Speaker 1: and the decarceration director for Live for USA. How she
Speaker 1: managed to do that is an amazing story. So be
Speaker 1: sure and tune in now. Dr Nikki Jackson. It's been
Speaker 1: so great to talk with you today. Thank you again
Speaker 1: for all the amazing work you're doing. And now we
Speaker 1: come to the final segment of our show. Well, there's
Speaker 1: two really. The first one is a question and it
Speaker 1: works like this. Let's pretend. Let's let's wish that I
Speaker 1: had a man g wand and I wish I did,
Speaker 1: and I could grant you one wish anything you want.
Speaker 1: What would you wish for if I had a magic wand,
Speaker 1: then I could just change one thing I guess at
Speaker 1: the end of the day with if I had this
Speaker 1: magic wand, what I really would wish is that the
Speaker 1: criminal justice system is really founded on truth, truth more
Speaker 1: than justice. Truth. I would love to see that truth
Speaker 1: would prevail over the lies that are being fed and
Speaker 1: created in our system. So if I had this magic
Speaker 1: wand and somebody said to me, I've been wrongly convicted,
Speaker 1: I wish there weren't so many barriers out there to
Speaker 1: get that person out of prison. I think it would
Speaker 1: be great to not have so many barriers to get
Speaker 1: that individual out of prison. And I couldn't agree with
Speaker 1: you more. And now we're going to close out with
Speaker 1: I love this part. It's a segment we call Words
Speaker 1: of Wisdom. And here's what's going to happen. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: turn off my microphone, turn up my headphones, and kick
Speaker 1: back in my chair and just listen to you and
Speaker 1: anything else you want to share, anything you feel is
Speaker 1: left to be said. It's called words of wisdom. And
Speaker 1: thank you, Dr Nikki Jackson. So what I would love
Speaker 1: for people to understand is that the folks who have
Speaker 1: been wrongly convicted, they have experienced something that those of
Speaker 1: us who have never been wrongly convicted can ever understand.
Speaker 1: And we need as a society to embrace them, to
Speaker 1: make sure that they feel welcome when they enter society.
Speaker 1: We need to provide services for them, We need to
Speaker 1: hold their hands, and we need to look at them
Speaker 1: as if they are human. And I often hear people
Speaker 1: refer to axonrees as ex offenders, and we have to
Speaker 1: strip that. We have to humanize these individuals because they
Speaker 1: are human beings and they have been injured, they have
Speaker 1: been traumatized. And what I would love to see as
Speaker 1: a victimologist is that we can call them survivors, just
Speaker 1: like we do with other types of victims. We want
Speaker 1: the word victim to be replaced with survivor. And I
Speaker 1: would love for all of us to work collectively. We
Speaker 1: are a village, to work together to help these folks
Speaker 1: become survivors. They can't do it on their own. They
Speaker 1: don't have the tools. We must embrace them and make
Speaker 1: sure that we help these folks get back into society
Speaker 1: the way they should and recognize them and make sure
Speaker 1: that we are there for them when they need us.
Speaker 1: And that's gonna take hard work from all parties, including police, prosecutors,
Speaker 1: the media. The media is really important too, because the
Speaker 1: media tells us they flash pick tuers of people who
Speaker 1: suspected of crimes, and all of a sudden, we believe
Speaker 1: that this person is a criminal and we'll be run
Speaker 1: with that. And so the media also has to be
Speaker 1: really cautious with how they create their narratives of their crime,
Speaker 1: of their cases that they're they're presenting. I think what
Speaker 1: I'm really trying to say is we have to remember
Speaker 1: we wronged a man or a woman, somebody's child, somebody's husband,
Speaker 1: somebody's parents, and we have to do the right thing.
Speaker 1: And sometimes doing the right thing isn't easy, but we
Speaker 1: must do the right thing. Thank you for listening to
Speaker 1: Righteous Convictions with Jason flam. I'd like to thank our
Speaker 1: production team Connor Hall, Annie Chelsea, Jeff Clyb, and Ila
Speaker 1: Robinson and Kevin Wardis. The music in this production was
Speaker 1: supplied by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Follow
Speaker 1: us on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter at Lava for Good.
Speaker 1: You can also follow me on both TikTok and Instagram
Speaker 1: at It's Jason flom Right. Just Convictions with Jason Flom
Speaker 1: is a production of Lava for Good podcast and association
Speaker 1: with Sigma Company Number one