upworthy

Justice

Democracy

Local newspapers are deleting old crime stories to give ex-convicts a second chance

Preventing one mistake from becoming a person’s permanent Google search result

Newspapers are deleting old stories about certain crimes so the rehabilitated can more forward.

A growing number of newspapers in the United States are doing their part with the rehabilitation of former criminals and helping them achieve new lives. How? By literally deleting their old ones.

Bringing it to worldwide attention by The Guardian, several American newspapers and their websites have taken down and erased old reported stories of local crimes. This movement was spearheaded in 2018 by Chris Quinn, an editor at Cleveland.com, who founded a “right to be forgotten” edict for his publication.

Multiple requests from readers to pull down old reports about them or simply remove their names from the stories inspired Quinn’s movement. One such example that Quinn experienced was a woman in the health field who at one point stole some drugs from her job. She served her sentence and not only was deemed completely rehabilitated by a judge, but had the records of her crime sealed. In short, no one would be able to find records of her crime today through official channels. Google, however, doesn’t forget.

A tough job interviewHaving a mistake from your past available online makes it more difficult during job interviews.Photo credit: Canva

While she tried to start a new career outside the medical field (she accepted the fact that her actions made it so she couldn’t reclaim her medical license), any potential employer could see her mugshot from Cleveland.com’s news coverage of her past crime upon just Googling her name. This made it difficult to move forward by obtaining a new job for her new life.

She’s just one of millions of people going through this struggle. Per The Sentencing Project, more than 60% of formerly incarcerated people are unemployed within one year of being released, and as many as one in three Americans have a criminal record of some sort. Given that most job applications require a background check, employers can unearth past offenses of job applicants through a simple Google search, which can influence whether or not a person can be hired. This means that a good chunk of Americans are losing out on opportunities due to being judged by a mistake they made deep in the past, some of which are decades-old.

A person in prison with their head in their hands.With their stories still available to the public years later, some rehabilitated offenders still feel imprisoned by their past.Photo credit: Canva

“We heard from many people about the pain this caused for them, especially those who had turned their lives around and were striving to be better people,” said Quinn in a 2022 op-ed updating their readers. “In 2018, we started our Right to be Forgotten project, accepting applications from people to remove their names from dated stories about them. We received 10 to 15 a month on average, and a committee of editors considered them.”

Other publications took notice and in recent years started enacting their own “right to be forgotten” practices, such as The Oregonian and The Boston Globe.

“Our response up until now has been that we do not remove accurate stories, as they are a snapshot of historical fact,” wrote Therese Bottomly, editor at The Oregonian. “But news organizations are coming to realize that such stories linger and affect lives in ways that can be outsized compared to the incident itself.”

Each publication has their own standards as to what stories get taken down and which ones remain online. Certain factors come into play in making that decision such as how long ago the incident was first reported and the severity of the crime committed. Some publications may elect to keep stories as written, but remove any mugshots that identify the persons involved. In any case, the overall focus is universal: Not letting a person’s past define their future.

A road with the words "FRESH START" written on the pavement.A clean slate means a fresh start and a new road for the rehabilitated.Photo credit: Canva

When people move in and refuse to move out, what do you do?


Squatters' rights laws are some of the most bizarrely misused legal realities we have, and something no one seems to have a good answer for. Most of us have heard stories of someone moving into a vacant home and just living there, without anyone's permission and without paying rent, and somehow this is a legal question mark until the courts sort it out.

According to The National Desk, squatters' rights are a carryover from British property law and were created to ensure that abandoned property could be used and to protect occupants from being kicked out without proper notice. It should go without saying that squatter law isn't meant to allow someone to just take over someone else's property, but sometimes that's exactly what happens.

It's what happend to Flash Shelton's mother when she put her house up for rent after her husband passed away. A woman contacted her with interest in the property, only she wanted to do repairs and look after the home instead of paying rent. Before anyone knew it, she had furniture delivered (which she later said was accidental) and set up camp, despite Shelton's mom not agreeing to the arrangement.

But since the woman had expressed her intention and already moved in, the matter was out of police hands, as Shelton found out when he tried to contact the local sheriff.

“They said, ‘I’m sorry but we can’t enter the house, and it looks like they’re living there, so you need to go through the courts',” he shared in a YouTube video.

Shelton rightfully didn't want the expense of a court battle, so he took matters into his own hands—not with violence, but with logic. He had his mom lease the home to him, and then told the squatter that she had to move everything out because he was moving things in.

“If they can take a house, I can take a house," he said.

He was calm and clear about her having to get everything out within the day or he would have people come and take it, and thankfully, she didn't put up a big fight.

That experience made him realize how squatter law can be abused, but that there's a faster system for removing a squatter than to go through the court system. If a squatter can move in and force a homeowner to take them to court to prove they are living there illegally, then he could simply move in alongside the squatter, putting the squatter in the position of having to take the homeowner to court instead.

"The legal process is so slow, and at some point when they're in there, you're going to feel like they have more rights than you do and that's how you're going to be treated. So even though you it's your house and you're paying the mortgage or whatever, at some point squatters feel like they have more rights than you, so they don't have an incentive to leave until a judge tells them to, until they're actually ordered to, and that could take months."

After successfully removing the squatters in his mother's house, Shelton has been tackling similar squatter situations for other homeowners in California, earning him the nickname "The Squatter Hunter."

"All I'm doing is becoming a squatter and flipping this process on them," Shelton told CBS News. "I figured if they could take a house, I could take a house."

According to CBS, he's successfully removed a dozen squatters in the past year. ""I'm not going in and I'm not hurting anyone," he said. "I'm not kicking them out, I'm not throwing them out." He's literally just moving in himself, setting up cameras, and then creating small annoyances until the squatters get fed up enough to move out.

California isn't the only state that has seen issues with squatters. There are squatter stories from all over the U.S. of people moving into a property and refusing to leave without a court order, tying owners up in lengthy, expensive legal battles.

Shelton even has a Change.org petition to try to get squatter laws changed to "make squatting in residential maintained homes criminal." Making squatting illegal "will shift the burden of proof onto the squatter and make the crime punishable with restitution an option for damages," the the petition states.

Watch Shelton share his personal story:

This article originally appeared in April.

Justice

Wrongfully convicted man proves his innocence using an episode of 'MythBusters'

John Galvan was only 18 years old when he was arrested for a crime he did not commit.

Justice (and scientific education) served.

The Discovery show “MythBusters” delighted investigative junkies and movie buffs alike in the years following its launch in the early 2000s. The stunt-filled show featured special effects experts Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman testing out the validity of everything from duct tape islands to mechanical sharks using scientific methods.

Back in 2007, 39-year-old John Galvan was 21 years into serving a life sentence for a crime he didn’t commit, when he caught a rerun of “MythBusters” on the prison television. The episode, “Hollywood on Trial,” which originally aired in 2005, shows Hyneman and Savage failing to light a pool of gasoline using a cigarette—a classic action film trope.

Not even a rolling fully lit cigarette could ignite a flame. In other words, the myth was officially “busted.This bit of information immediately caught Galvan’s attention, for it would be the very catalyst needed to prove his innocence and reclaim his freedom.

In September 1986, a fire broke out in a two-flat apartment building in southwest Chicago, killing two brothers—one of whom was suspected to be involved in a gang called the Latin Kings. Their siblings managed to escape and told police that a female neighbor had threatened to burn the building down as retaliation for her own brother’s death, an act supposedly committed by the gang.

The woman denied involvement and instead pointed the blame at Galvan, along with other neighbors interviewed by the police. Although Galvan had been asleep at his grandmother’s the night of the fire, he had no other evidence proving his innocence, and was arrested. He was only 18 years old.

Using violence, torture and deception tactics (which remain legal in 46 states), Detective Victor Switski eventually coerced Galvan into signing a confession after threatening that he could face the death penalty and end up “laying next to” his late father.

mythbusters sets man free

A photo of Galvan as a child.

Instagram


Galvan’s signed statement claimed he had started the fire by throwing a bottle filled with gasoline at the building and then tossing a cigarette into the pool of gasoline on the porch to ignite it. Which, again, is scientifically impossible.

Galvan immediately called his lawyer Tara Thompson, who had serendipitously been watching the same episode. Thompson and Galvan had been working on his third post-conviction petition, and both were thrilled to have stumbled upon some compelling evidence in the most unlikely of places.

“I remember I was excited, I was extremely happy because that just added to the other things that were coming together at that time. I felt like finally this is starting to all come out,” Galvan recalled.

Thompson added, “It was honestly shocking to me … I feel like all of us have seen movies — like Payback is a famous one — where they light the gasoline in the street with a cigarette and a car explodes, and I really had never given much thought to whether or not that might be real.”

“When I watched this MythBusters episode, as a lawyer, it made me realize that there are things you have to look deeper into — you can’t assume that you understand the science until you’ve looked into it,” she added.
innocence project

Tara Thompson (left) and John Galvan (right).

Instagram

The show’s findings were echoed by experiments conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). It made more than 2,000 attempts to ignite gasoline with a cigarette under various conditions and every attempt failed.

It wouldn’t be until 2017 that Galvan got his evidentiary hearing on his post-conviction claims. Thompson not only presented their findings, but also seven witnesses—including those who attested to also being tortured by the same detective who had interrogated Galvan, and an arson expert who testified that what Galvan falsely confessed to was scientifically impossible.

Despite the overwhelming evidence, prosecutors still denied that the science was correct.

“Even then, they really did not want to accept that this was not possible,” Ms. Thompson recalled. “I find that very telling about the state of science and the law … that these things that we probably should accept as true in the legal space, the system does not always want to accept.”

Galvan would have to wait until 2022—and after several appeals—to gain his freedom. He was exonerated largely based on the fact that he was abused into involuntarily signing his confession, rather than any changes to the science of the case.

Rebecca Brown, director of policy for the Innocence Project, says it speaks to “the critical importance of establishing mechanisms for people to get back into court when science changes or evolves, or when experts repudiate past testimony.”

“A ‘change-in-science’ statute here would have allowed for a presentation reflecting those changes in arson science and could have likely expedited Mr. Galvan’s exoneration,” she explained.

good news

He'll never get those 35 years back, but he's going to make the best of the time he has left.

Instagram

Adjusting to a new life outside the prison walls after 35 years has been no easy task, but Galvan is nonetheless taking his newfound freedom in stride. He’s most looking forward to having his own space to call home and getting back to drawing and painting. If you would like to support Galvan, check out his Amazon wish list.


This article originally appeared two years ago.


via Steve Hostetter

A comedian defends himself against a heckler police officer.

Some people just haven't gotten the memo: You really don't want to heckle comedian Steve Hofstetter. He's become one of my favorite stand-up acts both because he's just funny but also because of his brilliant ways of shutting down hecklers and other rude patrons who show up for his live act.

In this case, Hofstetter was in the middle of a bit where he quipped, "I don't like people." It was part of a larger joke recalling how he'd had a bad interaction with a police officer but that he was "still alive" because he was a white male.


Hofstetter was talking about how most cops like the joke but others get offended. His point was that if you get offended by a joke about cops killing innocent people, you're probably not a good cop. Just as he was finishing up the joke, a person in the front of the audience got up. When Hofstetter politely asked the guy to stop talking so loudly, the man said, "I'm going."

He then followed up, telling Hofstetter, "You disrespected me, so I'll disrespect you."

The man then went on a tirade, stealing a drink from another customer and getting into an argument with the club's bouncers. He also got into a shouting match with another patron before finally stepping outside.

Hofstetter tried to lighten the mood, joking, "I think he's mad that the Meghan Trainor concert was canceled last night. Maybe he's all about the bass, I don't know."

He then disclosed to the audience that the heckler had actually approached him before the show, asking Hofstetter to roast some of the friends the man had shown up with, which he refused to do.

That's when one of the heckler's companions told the comedian that the heckler was actually himself a cop. And that the man the heckler was shouting down was actually another cop who was embarrassed by his bad behavior.

"I know to drive slowly when I leave," Hofstetter joked.

But just to make it clear that he wasn't out to give all cops a hard time, the comedian noted that he actually thinks most cops are good people; he just wants them to speak up more when a bad cop does something wrong, comparing it to how comedians call out each other all the time when one of them crosses the line. And that's something we should all be able to get behind without the need for a hilarious punchline.


This article originally appeared on 12.12.16