Say you were arrested and wentthrough a full trial. There were no discrepencies and all sides played fair. The jury gives an honest verdict according to evidence. You are sentenced to life in prison but continue your outcry of innocent.
20 years later DNA proves you to be innocent of the crime and you are released.
You are angry.... you want to blame someone....who can you blame when it was a fair trial and a fair verdict based on evidence and the technology available in that time?
2007-06-28 08:29:53 · 11 answers · asked by mommymanic 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Why blame? Under who's authority where you told that the legal system would produce accurate results? Under who's authority where you told that man was infallible? There is no blame - sh*t really does happen. It could have been far worse, this person could have been that poor Brazilian lady that was burned alive in her car and now is a walking,breathing charred flesh golem. You accept the fact that you are still alive to talk about it and try to go on. Life isn't fair, be happy that most of us don't see the severe consequences of these type of mistakes.
2007-06-28 09:13:06 · answer #1 · answered by ycats 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Since you posted the question in the philosophy section, i`m going to give you a philosophical answer.
Somebody was convicted of a crime they didn`t commit in a fair trial
Q.Why did this happen?
A.The jury, state, judge, had a True belief but didn`t have knowledge of what took place.
Q.If they only had True beliefs then who had knowledge of what took place.
A.Only the person that directly witness or was a victim- or who took part in the crime.
Q.What is the difference between true belief and knowledge.
A.True belief is what you believe to be true.
Knoweledge is a True Belief plus Justification.
Q.Ok sounds nice, but what does it mean?
A.What you believe to be true is what you think happen. In order for you to have knowledge of what took place it is a three step process.
1.You must believe in the proposition
2.The proposition has to true
3. You have to justified in believing that propositon.
Q.Ok, still sounds a little foggy. If the DNA evidence implicates an indiviual in a crime then does the prosecution of Knowledge of what took place.
A.No, they have a strong True Belief.
Q.But, DNA is 99% accurate how is that not knowledge.
A.How do they know the victim didn`t want to be raped? How do they know the crime wasn`t staged? How do they know the defendant wasn`t set up?
They have a good true belief but they are not justified in that beleif because they cannot rule out all possibilities. Only the people that where present at the time of the crime are justified in their True Belief, hence they have knowledge.
Q.Can the prosecution or Jury ever have knowledge about a crime.
A.Yes, video taped crimes give the state knowledge of exactly what took place.
Q.Why
A.Because they know have TB+J
2007-06-28 08:50:33 · answer #2 · answered by Future 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. My attorney for not finding evidence to prove my innocence
2. The government IF DNA had been available say 5 years into my sentence but they refused to do the testing
3. The District Attorney for not realizing that I was innocent
You could also blame the jury if they were somehow prejudiced towards you.
2007-06-28 08:36:33 · answer #3 · answered by greencoke 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you could blame someone and go on and hate them until your teeth rot. You could go on and spend your whole life seeking revenge.
Or you could walk out and stop blaming. You could go on with life and tell everyone how you were falsely blamed with a chuckle along with a couple of angry sighs. Does blaming someone really get you anywhere? You'd just be stuck on that same incident for the rest of your life.
2007-06-28 08:48:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Somewhere it wasn't fair if an innocent person went to jail. Someone didn't do their job. Either the police or the DA didn't do their job right or an innocent person wouldn't have gone to jail.
2007-06-28 11:21:15 · answer #5 · answered by Jim San Antonio 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can't blame anyone in particular. Perhaps one could blame the contigency of human existence which is by it's nature conditioned by errors in judgement. But this would be an exercise in futility, like shaking one's fist at the wind because it blows too hot or too cold.
2007-06-28 08:34:28 · answer #6 · answered by Timaeus 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
all of that talking does not mean it was a fair trial, but i can not say one way or the other. lack of evidence in your statement
2007-06-28 09:58:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can blame the judicial system for its method's and policies. Its as simple as the system that the problem had to work with.
2007-06-28 08:33:22 · answer #8 · answered by scandalous candice 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Blame the whole legal system.
2007-06-28 08:34:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
You blame the system and sue the state.
2007-06-28 08:33:59 · answer #10 · answered by magix151 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋