I lost the article...the man had been convicted of murdering a McDonald's employee.
You would think the state could be sued or something...incredible, the guy loses 18 yeas of his life and who knows what he will do now.
Here is an interesting link to other similar cases.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=17&did=293
You would think the state could be sued or something...incredible, the guy loses 18 yeas of his life and who knows what he will do now.
Here is an interesting link to other similar cases.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=17&did=293
Seems like there is an awful lot of this free after 20 years DNA test stuff going on lately. Is anybody a bit skeptical about all these DNA releases.....I mean how unlucky can one be to be wrongly convicted of a murder in the first place? And at least a few of these guys that have been released initially CONFESSED to the crimes they were put away for.
Are there really people out there so dimwitted to admit to a murder they didn't commit??
Just seems that we are heaing of these cases on a regular basis and they should come around only once a lifetime. You need pretty strong evidence to put someone away (I know there are exceptions) and I would just like to hear how they possibly could have gotten it wrong in the first place. What evidence were they using the first time???
Are there really people out there so dimwitted to admit to a murder they didn't commit??
Just seems that we are heaing of these cases on a regular basis and they should come around only once a lifetime. You need pretty strong evidence to put someone away (I know there are exceptions) and I would just like to hear how they possibly could have gotten it wrong in the first place. What evidence were they using the first time???
ope:
Poker King Jim said:
I agree Jim. The prosecuting attorney working this case had all the evidence available at the time and probably had a good idea that this guy wasn't guilty. Yet, in order to bolster his chances for public office he has to get as many convictions as possible to show he is tough on crime. Or else the Attorney General pushed this case to get his numbers up as well so that he could run for governor or some such other nonsense.
But of course the law must hold these people blameless since if we were to hold them accountable for their botched work they would be less likely to work hard to get convictions. So what we have is scumbag lawyers having a good idea that someone is innocent but the guy is the best person to hang the crime on so they put him away for 18 years.
simpleton said:
Wow, how very naive. Large sample sizes means plenty of cases where someone has wrongly been convicted. You'd be more unlucky to get convicted for kiddy rape or something.
They admit to it because of pressure or to get a lesser sentence.
Strong evidence to put someone away? Obviously not all facts are always known, and not all the known facts are always presented in court. Sometimes even the facts aren't enough. Strong evidence can still be very incomplete evidence. The evidence itself may not be any good, eg a lying witness, mistaken identity, coincidence etc.
Doug, I'd imagine that guilty people getting set free is a much smaller % than people who are wrongly convicted. Is convicting 10 murders worth 1 innocent man in prison? Is setting free one guilty man worth setting free 10 innocent men?
