Why isn't innocence taken seriously? Is being right more important than someone's life? Do you think anything (like attitude) is changing, esp. among prosecutors and DAs?
2006-09-15 23:01:54 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I go to the Innocence Project website often. Currently, 183 people have been exonerated. It was around 150 approx. 2 years ago.
2006-09-15 23:02:46 · update #1
Frank...you're an a**hole. Wow, I feel just like a Republican for stooping so low and calling people name! Bad liberal, Bad! (I'll just spank myself.)
2006-09-15 23:23:03 · update #2
A big HOLE in people saying that "hey, mistakes happen..."
How about those who WEREN'T caught b/c the police were focused on the innocent person? That's right, if an innocent person is in jail, that means the real perp is still out there...I'm not so sappy to think just about the injustice of throwing an innocent person in jail. The public has a false sense of security b/c the real murderer is still out and about. Before you start defending a messed up system, which I have first hand experience dealing with, remember that there is nothing to gain from congratulatory praising of a flawed system. Hey, I'm just like any liberal. I don't want anyone, including people like Frank and friend, to go to jail for something they didn't do. And don't give me that crap of DAs and prosec. just doing their job. Bull$hit! Watch "After Innocence" and see the DAs trying to prevent an innocent man from going free. It's sad to see grown men lying to save face.
2006-09-16 23:30:23 · update #3
Just want to pass on a FACT:
25% of those who have admitted to committing a crime were later found by DNA to be innocent. Can we say manipulative police interrogation boys and girls?
2006-09-16 23:36:27 · update #4
Don't spank yourself, Julia. Come round to my place and I'll do it for you.
Always happy to help a fellow liberal....
2006-09-16 01:20:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a matter of doing the best they can in an uncertain world.
Absent a truly voluntary confession, or an admissible videotape of the defendant committing the crime, almost any conviction is going to be based on circumstantial evidence and questionable testimony.
So, a prosecutor need to make the call, and proceed vigorously, since that is their job. If you second-guessed every single decision, based on the slightest doubt, nothing would ever get done.
Innocence is taken seriously. That's why the system is massively stacked in favor of the defendant. The slightest defect in evidence, and it is generally thrown out. The defendant can appeal the decision, but the state cannot. Double jeopardy. The state must provide exculpatory evidence of innocence, but the reverse does not apply to the defense. And so on. So many advantages for the defendant, all in an attempt to level the playing field and prevent innocent people from being sent to prison.
Mistakes happen. And when they are discovered, they are corrected. That's also part of the job. But prosecutors cannot second guess every decision if they are going to be zealous and effective, which is what their job and the ethical standards require.
2006-09-16 12:30:09 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No Frank is not an asshole...he is trying to shed a little light in your direction. The question is more germain when you use the word guilt instead of innocense...
Being right has nothing to do with finding someone guilty.
What "attitude" is supposed to change?????
A prosecutor is charged with prosecuting criminals...its his job.
You really aren't very clear about your argument....the world is an imperfect place. Our governmental and even criminal justice systems are not perfect but seem to be better than many others.....what's your real gripe???
DNA detection is a marvelous tool...had it been around a few hundred years I am sure a few hundred more people would not have been prosecuted and perhaps the real criminals would have been caught....what's your beef?
Isn't it great we live in a nation where DNA can be invoked after a conviction and the person spared further punishment? Wonder how that would have worked in the goolog in Siberia under Stalin??????
What's your issue cupcake????????????
2006-09-16 07:25:55 · answer #3 · answered by Capt 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
So your point is that the system is unfair? Many of the convicted were found guilty by a jury of their peers and by evidence that led the jurors to believe their guilt. It changes nothing. We work with the facts as are known and by the evidence collected, so errors do occur...but don't you think it is better that we attempt to serve the cause of justice rather than allow rapists and murderers to roam the street and make no attempt to prosecute. Where is the happy medium. Courts are expensive and resources become strained when there is endless wrangling and since the Supreme Courts of various states has withheld the death sentence in many cases, it seems foolish not to indict and allow juries to make a choice. It is all good to be liberal, but if your rights were abused you will be one of the first to scream malfeasance.
2006-09-16 06:19:35 · answer #4 · answered by Frank 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think it is terrific that they are doing this.
Keep it up! DNA really helps in some cases to get the right person and let the innocent go ASAP. Good stuff. Thank science!
2006-09-16 06:11:39 · answer #5 · answered by diamondspider 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋