Posted on 11/23/2005 3:20:01 AM PST by Pharmboy
Well, an awful lot of the people convicted on DNA evidence also tend to be people who were convicted solely on an eyewitness ID, often by the victim.
While researchers on the subject are very aware that such IDs can often be very very inaccurate, the problem is the general public tends to either be unaware of this or in denial of it.
Meant to say released by DNA evidence, not convicted...
They must make the penalties for DAs very severe when they engage in the framing of the innocent. Despicable.
Da-mayor-in-waiting's framing of the innocent wasn't even a factor when Byrne and Washington delayed his ascendancy to the throne.
Jim Ryan's framing of Rolando Cruz was a major factor in his doing so poorly in his race for governor. But he would not have won anyway. His friend governor George Ryan had already destroyed the IL GOP and destroyed the name "Ryan".
Agreed.
Be sure to send a copy to Norman Mailer.
The social contract accepts these imperfections as unavoidable, perhaps even necessary in an imperfect world, else "justice" would be dispensed today entirely by automation and computers. Why complicate things with human juries?
I continue insisting that the present system, with its imperfections, is tried and true, perfected over millenia. It is the best we can do.
I also insist that the only thing necessary to make the process "just" is our willingness to be dealt with by the same imperfect system.
"Those" organizations are an abomination, and a monkey wrench in the system. The justified "discomfort" that they might feel is infinitely tiny compared to the ghastly and permanent discomfort of the new victim that they themselves made possible.
But necessary one. The bigger nightmare would be inaction through "Perfection in pursuit of the good".
Since the dawn of civilization this question has been asked and answered; it is neither new nor novel. Every philosopher has addressed it from ancient Greece to the present:
If imperfection is unavoidable, and injustice must be accepted as a result, is society closer to perfection by accepting an injustice to this scumbag? or to Teresa Halbach?
Those who get off on a technicality take advantage of the publicity given the truly innocent.
Sometimes, perhaps. More often, they "take advantage" of the fact that we have a strictly limited government that can't put people in prison simply because "everybody knows" they are guilty, but is required to prove that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Sure, there are "technicalities" in our standards of evidence in criminal trials -- but leave them out and we don't have standards any more.
Too many people seem to forget the real purpose of our Constitutional due process requirements. Yes, sometimes people who are really guilty go free -- but that situation is worlds better than a government that doesn't have to prove the guilt of those it imprisons.
Look at the photo of that man- and his sister and daughter!
They have weirdo written all over them. I mean, why didn't the authorities somehow use this evidence to keep him in jail. It's a travesty!
Indeed. I tell my kids that allowing commies and nazis march around is the price we pay for the first amendment, accidental shootings is the price we pay for the second amendment and letting the guilty go free and (more rarely) imprisoning the innocent is the price we pay for the 5th, 6th and 8th amendments.
Has anyone thought of going back to the lab that tested the DNA? Or going to another lab for a second test on the original DNA material?
The FBI lab and the Houston Police Dept. lab are just two examples where major problems have been identified.
Maybe if he were robbing stores because he couldn't get a job, you might have a teensy bit of a point. But what does murder have to do with it?
Maybe if he were robbing stores because he couldn't get a job, you might have a teensy bit of a point. But what does murder have to do with it?
Prison teaches kill or be killed, to react to any perceived threat with maximum violence.
That's fine wigh people we aren't ever gonna let out, but we don't keep everyone forever.
I have no interest in providing amenities for prisoners, but we do need a reorganization of the system to force the prisoners to behave. Only the guards should be allowed to be violent.
So9
A lot of the "technicalities" have nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the accused. Miranda is the best example. Prior to the Miranda decision, people had the same rights guaranteed by the constitution. The police, the courts, everyone observed those rights just as much pre-Miranda than post-Miranda... and probably more in pre-Miranda times.
What Miranda changed was obligating the police to become educators and inform people of their rights. Unlike public school teachers, the police are held responsible for whether the interrogated person "understood his rights". The slightest temporary mental distraction of the interrogated person... the slightest misuse of grammar by the police... and it is determined a person did not understand his rights.
Neither the prosecution, nor the defense, nor the judge are interested in finding the truth. On the jury I sat on, we were specifically instructed by the judge to ignore the truth and the facts. We were specifically instructed by the judge to make illogical conclusions.
Our courts have sluched into "lawyering" where every outcome is measured by "who was the best lawyer". The clear attitude of the system is that the best lawyer will always win, regardless of the facts or the law. If a defendant loses, the conclusion is always that he did not have a good lawyer.
The exceptions are rare, but exist. A couple years ago, judges seeking the slating of the GOP powerbrokers for a higher position attended a holiday party with the GOP faithful. I asked candidate A "On what basis will you base your decisions in a case in your courtroom."
This sitting judge answered "Bob, You're my friend. I remember my friends. Any friend of yours in my courtroom is a friend of mine."
Candidate B answered "The constitution, the law, the facts of the case." I reported back this information to the GOP powerbrokers who were looking for an excuse to favor candidate B and the unique circumstances of that would benefit the local GOP. A few were happy to use what I reported. Those few were an accountant and history teacher. But most of the powerbrokers actually thought candidate A gave a better answer.... and those powerbrokers were the ones who also happened to be lawyers.
Well, obviously this woman was a "perceived threat" (/sarcasm): "This time, he was charged in the death of Teresa Halbach, a 25-year-old photographer who vanished on Oct. 31 after being assigned to take pictures for Auto Trader magazine at Avery's Auto Salvage."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.