OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 21, 2014, 07:41:09 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: DNA evidence exonerates a wrongly convicted BLACK man after 22 years in prison  (Read 1028 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Stavro
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,236



« on: October 25, 2007, 02:46:16 PM »

Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/25/innocence.project/index.html

Interesting is the fact that DNA evidence exonerated 15 wrongly convicted individuals on the death row.
Also interesting is the fact that 55 % of the wrongly convicted individuals did not receive even financial compensation from the State who choose the jury that put them behind bars.


 
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2007, 03:08:02 PM »

Also interesting is the fact that 55 % of the wrongly convicted individuals did not receive even financial compensation from the State who choose the jury that put them behind bars.

And what should be done?  If someone is wrongly convicted and the state knew of it when it happened, that is one thing.  But if the case progressed with the available evidence and a mistaken conviction occurs, who should bear the penalty?  The jurors?  The prosecutors?  The state choses the jury pool at random; the lawyers have a lot of say as to who makes the final panel.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2007, 03:18:01 PM »

And what should be done?  If someone is wrongly convicted and the state knew of it when it happened, that is one thing.  But if the case progressed with the available evidence and a mistaken conviction occurs, who should bear the penalty?  The jurors?  The prosecutors?  The state choses the jury pool at random; the lawyers have a lot of say as to who makes the final panel.

Well, the prosecutor works for the state, so the state should be liable for unjustly prosecuting an innocent man. If the state was liable under tort law for prosecuting an innocent person it may help cut back on wrong convictions. But, ultimately, I think we need to start moving away from having eyewitness testimony admissible in a court of law and requiring the prosecution to prove their case as one would a scientific hypothesis; it will certainly make the prosecution's job more difficult, but it will help reinforce the presumption of innocence...it's better a thousand guilty people go free than one innocent person be unjustly convicted.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #3 on: October 25, 2007, 03:26:42 PM »

Well, the prosecutor works for the state, so the state should be liable for unjustly prosecuting an innocent man. If the state was liable under tort law for prosecuting an innocent person it may help cut back on wrong convictions. 

There should be a distinction between a false positive and an inadequate investigation, at least.  I can agree to your proposition if the state is only liable for inadequate investigations.

But, ultimately, I think we need to start moving away from having eyewitness testimony admissible in a court of law and requiring the prosecution to prove their case as one would a scientific hypothesis; it will certainly make the prosecution's job more difficult, but it will help reinforce the presumption of innocence...it's better a thousand guilty people go free than one innocent person be unjustly convicted. 

I would even consider this (although I'm much more reluctant, in comparison to your first point), but eyewitness testimony should still be available as grounds for the procuring of search and discovery warrants, as well as for the questioning of other witnesses and suspects.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #4 on: October 25, 2007, 04:46:55 PM »

There should be a distinction between a false positive and an inadequate investigation, at least.  I can agree to your proposition if the state is only liable for inadequate investigations.

If an investigation is carried out with complete objectivity (with they rarely if ever are) then I would agree that the state may not necessarily be liable for a false postitive, though some compensation to those wrongly convicted, comprable to what they could have likely made in the job force, should still be given for lost time as a matter of social justice. There are other, worse, ways in which we waste far more tax dollars.

Quote
I would even consider this (although I'm much more reluctant, in comparison to your first point), but eyewitness testimony should still be available as grounds for the procuring of search and discovery warrants, as well as for the questioning of other witnesses and suspects.

Oh, I certainly agree it should be admissible for gaining warrants, and I would say even admissible in a trial under certain conditions (more for describing conditions of a crime, especially in the sentencing phase, than identifying suspects), but as a general principle one should not be convicted on eyewitness testamony alone.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2007, 04:47:24 PM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Psalti Boy
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Don't need one
Posts: 842



« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2007, 02:55:53 AM »

Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/25/innocence.project/index.html

Interesting is the fact that DNA evidence exonerated 15 wrongly convicted individuals on the death row.
Also interesting is the fact that 55 % of the wrongly convicted individuals did not receive even financial compensation from the State who choose the jury that put them behind bars.


 

I was just curious . . . why did you have to point out that it was a "BLACK" man that was wrongly convicted?

PB
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.05 seconds with 32 queries.