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."

Our government finally does something right

[Wonko the Sane (25252)]

The country is now safe from terrorist grandmothers!

Re:Our government finally does something right

[Vitriol+Angst (458300)]

So, the REVENGE is complete.
She managed to live as a productive citizen, have kids, and pay taxes -- but now at 65, the genius database that is going to let no small-time criminal get away has caught her. This is just sad. I don't think any of us really want a perfect tracking system -- we want good enough justice and better courts.

I remember that my brother used to mess around with drugs in high school. He never got caught, but had some "therapy" when my parents found out. They don't have this for poor people -- they just go to jail. Now my brother makes over $250,000 and runs the SouthEaster division of some big company -- a productive citizen. If the system had caught him, he'd be an unemployable deadbeat, and probably dealing with depression and recidivism like all the other folks. We like to think that we are different -- but opportunity makes a HUGE difference to your outcomes in life.

I'm glad when some mass murderer gets caught -- but I'm not so sure about this lady. Her life is over -- innocent or not. And it won't help anyone but to keep the employment of prison guards up. Do you know these mega-prisons have lobbyists now and that's where we got most of the push for mandatory sentences and 3 strikes and you are out?

Murder = OK? Are you kidding?

[sjbe (173966)]

the genius database that is going to let no small-time criminal get away has caught her. This is just sad.

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.

Re:Murder = OK? Are you kidding?

[kaiser423 (828989)]

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.

Re:Murder = OK? Are you kidding?

[by Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:

[schnikies79 (788746)]

Or are you just one of those tools who think everybody in innocent just because they say so. She was convicted by a jury of her peers.

Re:Murder = OK? Are you kidding?

[Greyfox (87712)]

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.

Convict

[conureman (748753)]

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

When prison helps

[CustomDesigned (250089)]

A guy at our church used to be a domestic terrorist. He had joined a KKK group. When he was finally caught and imprisoned [booknotes.org], he had bombed dozens of black churches and synagogues. Initially, prison made him worse. But during a long stretch of solitary confinement, he finally took stock of his life and asked God to help him change into a better person.

Re:Our government finally does something right

[Kjella (173770)]

Oh, give me a break. You can discuss if this is a wise use of money or helps against terrorists, but if as a side effect an escaped murderer is caught and brought to justice, why are you trying to spin that as a bad thing? I really couldn't care less if she's been a saint since she escaped or if she claims to be innocent - a jury of her peers, after hearing all the evidence, found her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not exactly terribly creative to claim you escaped because you're innocent, you know. I want fugitives, whereever they may be and however long time has passed, to fear that some day they'll be found out and brought to justice. Within a reasonable balance of catching them, bringing them to trial and making sure they don't escape in the first place, that is.

Re:

[A beautiful mind (821714)]

I want fugitives, whereever they may be and however long time has passed, to fear that some day they'll be found out and brought to justice. Within a reasonable balance of catching them, bringing them to trial and making sure they don't escape in the first place, that is.

I want all crimes except genocide or crimes against humanity to expire in 20 years tops. "Fugitives" are humans most of all and if they managed to keep themselves out of the hands of law enforcement for 20 years and didn't commit any crime

Re:Our government finally does something right

[Wonko the Sane (25252)]

At 64 she remains perfectly capable of killing her new husband, so her danger to society is hardly reduced.

Correct, but was this danger to society great enough to justify all the new government powers that have been set up after 2001? If this is the best the DHS can do, then where does that put the cost to benefit ratio?

Give her a break!

[Funkcikle (630170)]

The authorities should focus on finding the one-armed man.

What is the real issue here ?

[Alain Williams (2972)]

On the face of it she was found guilty of murder and compounded that by absconding from prison. She claims that she is innocent, but she would say that any way. There is no way that the armchair sleuths on slashdot can come to any realisitic determination of the truth. I fully appreciate that 'the law' is on occasion incorectly applied ... but that is another story.

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.

Re:What is the real issue here ?

[Large Green Mallard (31462)]

The databases were created to stop terrorism. If they're being used to chase down anyone the government wants for anything, it's another step toward a police state.

Re:

[Qzukk (229616)]

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.

Agreed. That some escaped convict was caught is certainly good news. The bigger question, since the database "caught" her for using an SSN that was "close" to her old one, is what happened to the other few hundred people whose SSN was a digit off as well?

Surprised at what you might find

[Sanat (702)]

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.

The title off the post is irritating

[smitty_one_each (243267)]

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?

Re:

[Kenneth Stephen (1950)]

Au contraire.

Its the difference between building a house without a hammer, and building a house with one. The hammer didn't hammer the nails; the person did. However, the house wouldn't have gotten built without the hammer because its just too difficult to do it otherwise. And thats the point: the database is a tool that makes the difference between catching some criminals and letting them get away scot-free. The title of the story is exactly right.

tricky one

[apodyopsis (1048476)]

Tricky one.

Rather then attempt to clear her name shed escaped from jail and started a new life - a felony in itself.

On one hand you take the argument that they system has an appeals system designed to right injustice so if she believed she was innocent she should of tried to clear her name, on the other hand you have a possibly inept defense lawyer who seemed not to be dong their job and the possibility that left on her own she would rot in jail.

It is clear that the police have significant evidence to pin the crime on her, and the original jury clearly thought so. And we only have to facts as stated from TFA that make her seem like a saint based on the new life after the original murder.

And a justice system only works if all judgments and laws are upheld.

I am slightly disturbed by the final comment about this database "But there also were other clues that he said he could not talk about." - WTF? has this person never heard of conspiracy theorists? give them a single clue like that and they can invent ten secret organizations by lunchtime.

Wrong Message

[ncryptd (1172815)]

I realize that this is supposed to be a "Look what Big Brother can do for you!" piece -- but is anyone else a little unsettled by what went on? A woman claims her innocence to the point where she breaks out of jail. After escaping, she goes on to live a normal life for 35 years (not harming anyone, and raising children), after which the government re-captures her, and will haul her back to prison to rehabilitate. 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.
 
 

She and her husband ran a junk and antiques shop for a number of years, friends said. More recently, Darby worked cleaning houses and sitting with elderly people.

Whew! Glad we have her off the streets. Thank God for that database....

Re:

[Reality Master 101 (179095)]

A woman claims her innocence to the point where she breaks out of jail.

What, only innocent people try and break out of jail? Please.

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.

So what's your point? If we convict people who MURDER their spouses, we should let them out to see if they can turn their life around? If your sister's husband murders your sister, then escapes, are you OK with just letting him go? I

Re:Wrong Message

[Paradise Pete (33184)]

we convict people who MURDER their spouses

The sad part is that If she hadn't done it in all caps she might have gotten away with it.

No, wrong understanding

[(arg!)Styopa (232550)]

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?

Stepping backwards

[Fantastic Lad (198284)]

Maybe prison is meant to be *punishment*, and no, I don't think she's done her time if she was in fact guilty.

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

Re:Stepping backwards

[Bozdune (68800)]

Yes, the police system creates fear. But does fear deter crime? The answer is no. This has been proven by countless studies over the years, many of which have focused on capital punishment and its deterrent effect (it has none - see, for example, this [nsw.gov.au]).

So your most of your argument is specious.

The part of your argument that is incontestable is the part where you say "[prison] takes [criminals] off the streets." That, in fact, does lower the crime rate, although there are much more sensible approaches to lowering the crime rate (for example, de-criminalizing drug use (see this [powells.com])).

The fact that Indiana didn't catch the woman for 35 years implies to me that they probably didn't try very hard -- hell, she didn't even move out of state. I'll bet there's a subtext to the story, or circumstances that we don't know about, that convinced the cops that she posed zero threat to society and wasn't worth expending the resources to track down. That judgment, if it was made, turned out to be true.

Yesss! Guess my PDP-11 batch job finally finished!

[by Anonymous Coward]

I was wondering how it was going...

wasn't it created for catching terrorists?

[twms2h (473383)]

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

Re:matching ids

[edittard (805475)]

Don't be harsh - have you never written a query in such a way that it didn't use the indexes correctly?

P.S. Why is /. using the wheelbarrow symbol for database?

Because of privacy rules

[hey! (33014)]

"Papers please." Americans never want to here these words. But even as far back as 1972, scholars of civil rights were aware of the dangers posed by compulsory provision of social security numbers. The uniqueness property of the SS numbers are so useful, it was quickly becoming necessary to use the number to transact a great deal of government and even private business.

At least it used to be that the FBI couldn't troll through every database the government had, looking for people. The idea was that pe

Re:Firt post!!

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

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.

Re:Of course...

[Opportunist (166417)]

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.

Re:Of course...

[durdur (252098)]

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.

Re:

[Squalish (542159)]

Google says:
Mexico's law does that, but escaping from [certain] US prisons will draw charges and if convicted, tack a few years onto your sentence.

Re:Of course...

[Squalish (542159)]

And I quite like Mexico's philosophy on the policy [pulitzer.org]

Re:

[spiritraveller (641174)]

In my state, a person convicted of a felony who escapes from prison can be charged with the crime of Escape. If they are then convicted of the escape, they can be sentenced up to an additional ten years.

If "basic human urges" could not be punished, prostitution would be legal in every state.

Re:

[spiritraveller (641174)]

Of course sex is a basic human urge... but rape?

People do it, but I'd hardly call it basic.

If you have the urge to rape people, I would urge you to talk to a psychiatrist. Even if you never act on those urges, it's a sign of something you should be dealing with.

Are you smoking crack?

[ubuwalker31 (1009137)]

When you are convicted by a jury in the United States of a felony, you loose a number of rights by operation of law. You loose your right to freedom by having to go to jail, you loose your right to hold property, by having to compensate the victim and the state, and often, your right to vote. The reason why this is "ok" is because you lost these rights after "due process of law".

Escaping from jail is a serious criminal offense with serious additional penalties. There is no statute of limitation concerns

Re:

[deftcoder (1090261)]

When talking about things related to the law, it may help to be a bit more articulate in your speech.

'Loose' = the opposite of 'tight', 'to lose' = the opposite of 'to win' or 'to gain'.

Other than that, good post.

additional punishment for breaking out

[nurb432 (527695)]

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.

Re:additional punishment for breaking out

[Wolfrider (856)]

--In other words: If we judge this on a case-by-case basis, there is NO "benefit" to putting a stable Grandma in prison after 35 years of crime-free existence. It would undoubtedly be more of a tragedy for her children and grandchildren if we tried (not to mention her husband.)

Re:

[lobStar (1103461)]

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.

Re:

[Elemenope (905108)]

When asked, the defendant proffered his reasoning: "He just needed killin'." There was a murmur of agreement in the court, and the judge nodded approvingly. The DA, desperately trying to remain expressionless, braced himself and stood up; this was going to be a toughie.

Re:Has she offended since?

[Elemenope (905108)]

(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?

Re:Has she offended since?

[Cal Paterson (881180)]

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.

Re:

[vidarh (309115)]

Except it is not a good deterrent. There is absolutely no proof that longer murder sentences leads to higher rates of murders.

Truth of the matter is that there are countries where murder carries long sentences with high murder rates (like the US) and with low murder rates (like the UK) and there are countries where murder carries short sentences with very low murder rates (like the Scandinavian countries) - there's no conclusive link between the length of sentences in these cases and frequency.

The point

Re:Has she offended since?

[Ironsides (739422)]

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.

Re:Has she offended since?

[lazlo (15906)]

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)

Re:

[stoicfaux (466273)]

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?

Eh? "Regardless of circumstance?" Circumstances are why we have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, not guilty by reason of mental defect, and so on. Even then, the state can decline to bring charges, a plea bargain

Re:

[Descalzo (898339)]

What I'm interested in hearing about is the people who were arrested. Not fingered. We'll NEVER hear about all the people who were fingered, because fingering is not really a bad thing.

Well, maybe I'm being harsh. You should explain what exactly you mean by being "fingered" and what's wrong with it, and why we should be up in arms about it.