Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner
by jfiling » Sun Jul 27, 2008 2:51 am
by Greener » Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:15 pm
by jfiling » Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:39 pm
Greener wrote:If new technologies can exonerate an innocent man who has been wrongly convicted, then I am a firm believer in using them. I have reworked several cold cases that I examined once and then re-examined using technology not available in that previous examination period.However, while The Innocence project does help the wrongly convicted, their publicity machine is fascinating to watch work. I have had a half dozen or so of my cases examined by the innocence project of Ohio, and even Barry Schecks, Benjamin Cardozo School of Law. The only time you hear about what great work they conduct is when someone is released, and that should be reported on. What about all the cases that Innocence Projects works, that upholds the original conviction and appellant process. You never hear about the innocence project reviewing a case, paying for analysis to be conducted, and then reporting that the judicial system got it right.Also, it is amazing how much review goes into a case before it is taken on by the innocence project. So just because someone may be wrongly accused may not be good enough because unless it has potential to be winner innocence project may not take it.
by Mr. MacPhisto » Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:28 pm
jfiling wrote:Some good points there. I haven't found the Innocence Project to be trumpeting their failures, but in fairness they are working in a high-risk, low-reward environment. Regarding review, I would suspect that they need a convict who has a somewhat reasonable expectation of innocence, and DNA that was not able to be tested before, in order to take on a case. They do have limited resources, so it seems like a fair standard to adopt. In the interest of justice, though, I personally celebrate every prisoner they are able to exonerate, and at the same time celebrate every prisoner whose guilt they are able to confirm. Particularly in death row cases. I find it easier to sleep knowing that an executed convict was 100% guilty.
by jfiling » Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:50 pm
Mr. MacPhisto wrote:Agreed here. I think we sometimes get so hyped up in the pursuit of justice that we forget to step back and realize that our system was originally set up to let some guilty people go free. I'd rather see 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man pay for a crime he didn't commit. That must be the philosophy that DAs, juries, etc follow.I think the amount of people percentage wise that have been innocent and executed is probably pretty low, but we still need to continue to look into these cases. The death penalty exists because we value life and believe that by taking a life in cold blood one forfeits their own right to live. This is a very serious thing and should never be treated lightly. I think prosecutors, judges, juries, and the general public sometimes let emotions from a case weigh to heavily on their minds. Under no circumstances should someone convicted on entirely circumstantial evidence be eligible for the death penalty. Juries also really need to understand what reasonable doubt it and apply it to their decisions. I think too often that many see horrible crimes committed and become too emotionally involved. They want to see someone pay for the atrocity and their anger can be misdirected. When emotions get involved in decision making it can end very badly.
by jfiling » Thu Jul 31, 2008 5:52 am
Return to No Holds Barred
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests