Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94
I was just going by the original linked article, which didn't seem to suggest that much about how important the errors in the testimony were. Knowing more about the case, the errors do seem pretty significant, especially considered with other factors.
I just think the language of "an innocent man" is pretty problematic once someone has been convicted, in the absence of a new trial or an exoneration.
We can wonder mainly if the charges ever would have been brought without the original determination of the fire investigator in this case, especially. Once that determination was made, all the other evidence seemed to fall into place. Witnesses saw his behavior differently; you had the jailhouse collaboration of what he had admitted to, etc.
This case isn't particularly a good example of the issue I'm going to mention, but I think there's a little bit of a problem with treating convictions as if they are still open cases long after the fact. Once twenty years have gone by, I think there's a tendency for almost everyone involved to kind of forget the victims of the original crime and solely have interest in believing in the innocence of the prisoner. Obviously, I'm not saying that I don't believe in appeals; simply that some skepticism about new evidence or new claims or recanted testimony might be a good thing in a lot of cases, assuming that our intention isn't just to make lasting conviction impossible.
If we didn't have the death penalty, obviously the stakes would be lower.
|
From my experiences with the criminal justice system and research I've done, I would have to strongly disagree with the bolded statement. It seems like you're taking a few highly-public cases, and assuming that it correlates to a high percentage of these types of appeals. Plus, it underestimates the presence of victim advocates services, etc.
A couple of other things with this:
1) I think you're vastly over-estimating the amount of post-conviction challenges that take place. Look at the numbers for convictions per state and nationwide, then look at the number taken on by organizations like the Innocence Project and similar state programs (which I think you're referencing when you talk about post-conviction investigations). When you look at the numbers, you see that lasting convictions are in fact possible.
2) It seems like you're advocating a neater, cleaner criminal process at the expense of defendant's post-conviction rights. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but no matter the freshness of the conviction (i.e. whether it was last year or 20 years ago), if there are problems with the investigation or proceedings, those should be investigated (if at all possible).
3) There are mechanisms in the system that make lasting convictions (if pursued in the correct manner) possible. Defendants aren't going to have a right to never-ending appeals - the higher courts aren't obligated to take certain appeals. At some point, the process ends.
Look, I get what it's like to be on the other side of the coin, being the victim while the defendant takes every available avenue in the process. Still, I'd rather see the process played out fully and fairly, in accordance with the Constitution, even if it means some negatives for the victims and their families.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94
If we didn't have the death penalty, obviously the stakes would be lower.
|
A little bit, yes, but the stakes would still be high. For anyone who is curious, I would highly recommend taking the opportunity to visit a maximum security prison for violent offenders, etc. I think it can give a good idea of the stakes post-conviction, even if you're not talking about putting someone on death row.