Posted on 01/25/2007 5:14:56 AM PST by NapkinUser
I brought this up on the air yesterday, but we never really did develop much a conversation about it.
Pete Williams walked out of a Georgia jail yesterday. He had been in jail for 21 years, convicted of a rape he did not commit. Pete was freed thanks to the work of a third-year law student and the Georgia Innocence Project. Some DNA evidence still existed from his 1985 conviction .. and that DNA evidence proved that he was not the rapist.
So ... how did he get convicted? On the eye-witness testimony of the victim, that's how. The victim identified Williams as the man who raped her. I've been looking since yesterday, and I can't find the name of this victim who fingered the wrong man? Who is she? Why did she identify Williams? How does she feel now knowing that an innocent man spent 21 years in jail because of her faulty eye-witness identification?
More importantly .. does this woman owe anything to Pete Williams? Twenty-one years in jail means he's not exactly the most employable person in the world right now. Should she step forward to help? How about paying for some job training. Hell .. how about paying for a college education? I think she owes this innocent man something. An apology isn't enough. How about forking over about one-half of her net worth?
We've been learning that eyewitness accounts of crimes are not quite as reliable as we might think they are. Maybe we need to change the way this eyewitness testimony is generated and used in court.
One Georgia legislator is moving to do just that. Representative Stephanie Stuckey Benefield is drafting a bill that would establish new rules for the use of eyewitness testimony in court. Her bill sets forth four rules the police would have to follow for the testimony to be admissable:
1. The officer showing possible suspects to the victim must not know which is the suspect;
2. Photos or people must be shown one at a time, not all at once;
3. The witness should be told that o.k. to say "none of these is the bad guy";
4. Officers should record how confident a victim is in making an ID.
Every one of these rules sounds completely reasonable to me. I'm not a law enforcement officer, nor did I practical criminal law -- so perhaps more experienced people might have a different idea.
I do know that I just hate the idea of an innocent American having their freedom taken away. I would truly rather have a guilty person go free than have an innocent person serve time in jail.
At the very least ... let's five serious consideration to Representative Benefield's legislation ... and let's find the victim and see what she is willing to do to correct the damage done from her false eyewitness identification.
She should have to pay money for a life deprived. V's wife.
Nice title.
Way to piss me off first thing when I get to work in the morning!
Isn't what she did one of the ten commandments?
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
Not to pick nits, but if you start to hold eyewitness liable for mistaken testimony, it will be even harder to find eyewitnesses to anything. People will just move along, and not talk to the police.
Malicious testimony is one thing. If somebody can be proven to have given false testimony maliciously, have at them. But mistaken testimony offered in good faith should not make one liable for anything. It is the court's and the jury's job to make the determination.
She'll get hers, one day. God sees all.
Lost in the discussion is the FACT that the perp, the GUILTY perp, is and has been walking around freely.
Unless of course he was arrested on other charges, or was capped by someone for dissing them.
Now ... what lessons does this story hold for the Duke stripper case????
Eyewitness testimony is some of the most unreliable there is, especially if the witness only saw for a brief moment, or while under stress.
There are always gaps in what you perceive and our brains automatically fill in the gaps, though not necessarily with reality.
When people saw the first "Friday the 13th" many swore they saw a slashing in one scene, however the scene cut away before the knife touched.
I agree
Or maybe, just maybe, she truly and wholeheartedly believed that was the man who raped her....
If she truly believed it was him, then she honestly gave her true witness. A mistaken identity, but not a sin.......
Knowing little of the whole story, I must ask in general: What is a victim truly believes that the suspect she chose (from photos or lineup) IS the criminal? Is that bearing false witness? Suppose the guy chosen looks almost identical to another? That has happened before.
How did he get 21 years? I thought the maximum was 15, and if it is the first offense they usually go half on that. Damn, he must have had one doozy of a lawyer.
I agree
But, but . . . what will that do to my record as a prosecutor? How will I ever achieve higher office, maybe even the governorship, if I let innocent people go free when I can't find the real perp? You're going to have to join the real world, man. My political career is much more important than your piddling guilt or innocence.
Pseudo quote from about half the prosecuting attorneys in the US, Dem or Pub.
Nowhere in the story is the rape allegation itself called into question. Why aren't any freepers showing anger at law enforcement? Why aren't any freepers showing anger at the defense attorney who represented the wrongly accused man? Where in this story does it explain how the woman (God forbid we refer to her as the rape victim, oh no, there's no such thing as rape, after all) was solely responsible for the man ending up in prison? If the man didn't cop a plea, then he was found guilty by twelve of his peers, right?
Pay attention, freeperettes. This is what we can expect from the Duke fiasco.
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0801/0801jackson.htm
From the Link:
/ Whenever Jackson takes the stage at moments such as these there is always the payout, and this time was no different. Toyota, stupidly enough, committed $7.8 billion to a "Diversity Effort," pledging the money over 10 years toward increasing business with minority suppliers and hiring more minority employees. Toyota also said that the program will include minority procurement, dealer development, job training and community support.
Jim Press, chief operating officer of Toyota's U.S. sales arm, said the automaker will spend $700 million over the next year with minority businesses, place $100 million with minority money management companies and expand the use of minority investment banking firms. Toyota will also hire a minority advertising agency next month and spend $150 million over the next three years on minority promotional programs. Toyota will also increase its budget for developing minority dealers to $25 million, and will set a goal of finding four to six new minority dealers a year. /
Still think you're not a charity?????
More importantly .. does this woman owe anything to Pete Williams?
_________________________________________________________
No! She has to suffer again for having mis-identified her rapist.
Until there is proof that she maliciously and falsely accused Mr. Williams - she is still the victim of an unsolved crime.
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.