This NYT article has sapped too much energy to be able to rant but I thought I’d bring it to your attention. I just couldn’t believe I was reading this shit in a US newspaper. Regarding DNA testing to potentially exonerate Mr. Dredge on rape charges:
A 120 year reduction?
Man I hope that guy was in there for 600 years or something.
Prosecutors don’t want a million prisoners lining up for their turn to be retested.
Convictions, in general, are the final word unless an appeal is won.
It’s fine to oppose this, but the actions of the state and the prosecutors is hardly noteworthy, let alone noteworthily evil.
Yea and I don’t want to have to go to work everyday. Personally I think the placing of finality above justice is noteworthily evil. Shouldn’t the ability to test DNA be classified as new evidence and at least POTENTIALLY worthy of an appeal?
There is a difference between “just” and “legal.”
If Joe Blow did not commit a crime… but has been convicted of that crime… and then, evidence surfaces that would PROVE he did not commit the crime…
…it is legal to simply say, “Tough. You’re still a jailbird.”
But it is far from “just.”
Well, at least the title of the OP took another well-deserved swipe at criminal defense attorneys. Good thing there are none of that vile ilk around here, eh?
Good Point, Bricker. Rather than taking a swipe at the criminal defense attorneys, he shoulda just swiped at an entire profession because he disagrees with a few in Florida. That’d be much better.
Well, it’s the prosecutor’s job to oppose continual testing requests, and a defense attorney’s job to try to get them in.
If prosecutors didn’t do this, the potential for abuse is very large.
As always, the courts have the final say.
It’s an adversarial system. The objections of the prosecution are therefore not especially noteworthy.
Hey, the whole thing is taking place in Florida. What are the fucking odds? Can we give Florida back to the Spanish?
I live in Florida. I doubt they’d want it.
I just wonder, except perhaps for some prisoners just wanting to make nuisances of themselves, what the potential for abuse is?
If you test, and it is the guy’s DNA, you know you’ve got the right person. If you test, and it isn’t the guy’s DNA, you’d better send the cops back out to look for the real criminal.
The scary thing about this is that it seems that prosecuters become more concerned with having someone–anyone–convicted than with actually finding out who did the crime.
Of course, some say that this is an inevitable consequence of the adversarial trial system. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but if it is then it’s pretty damn sad. As Wang-Ka said, it might be legal, but that doesn’t mean it’s just.
Clearly the objection was to the public’s interest in “finality”, whatever that is, trumping the possibility of an innocent person being imprisoned. Despite the poorly-chosen thread title, are any of the legal beagles here prepared to call that justice?
It is not justice, and it is not rare. In my sole criminal case, the prosecutors have vigorously opposed every attempt to test the physical evidence.
Can i just add my voice to those who criticized the OPs jab at defense attorneys?
While i certainly would find it a bit discomfitting to defend a heinous person who i was certain was guilty f the crime, the fact is that the accused has a legal (and, in my opinion, a moral) right to counsel. Not only that, but just about every innocent person who was ever charged with a crime is free today thanks to a defense lawyer.
I’m constantly amazed that people who probably take pride in the American political and legal system are so willing to bad-mouth a group of people who help to make that system what it is.
Disclaimer: i realize that the system is far from perfect, but i don’t think defense lawyers are to blame for that
Funny, I thought it was the prosecutors job to make sure the person who actually committed the crime is put in prison, not just anyone they can get their hands on.
I´m Spanish and… well, you may keep Florida if you want… really… no problem here…
I read the same NYT article as the OP did, and I’m appalled! Not mentioned yet: the victim of the rape for which this Dredge fellow was convicted described a man 6 foot tall and heavy, Dredge is 5 ft 6 weighs 145. He works as an auto mechanic and six of the people he worked with swore that he was at work when the rape happened!
Its bad enough that our prisons are pustules that manufacture sociopaths like Ford makes cars. But to send an innocent man into such a hell-hole on such a basis…words fail me.
But then, finally, to resist his release and exoneration…
Sickening. Just plain sickening.
I just realized that the link takes you straight to the second page of the article. Even more scary, in general terms, is some of the stuff that appears on the first page, such as:
WTF???
The prosecuters use this physical evidence as a key part of their case when they convicted the guy, and now the fact that the physical evidence was incorrect is considered insufficient grounds for dismissal or retrial? This is beyond belief.
Even further beyond belief is that Florida state lawmakers have, for some reason, decided that such cases should effectively have an arbitrarily-imposed statute of limitations, despite the fact that many of the crimes themselves (murder, rape) have no statute of limitations.
I really don’t know what’s going on when shit like this happens.
It is a travesty that some people would put finality and the “victims feelings” above the truth of who actually committed the crime.
I’m not going to comment on the merits of the particular cases mentioned in the article. I’d just like to make a few observations.
First, lawsuits and groundless appeals by prisoners is a major problem. It costs significant of money, time and resources to process them all. Having the case drag on for years is indeed hard on victims and their families. Prosecutors help curb some of these abuses by presenting strong evidence fairly and denying grounds for an appeal by the inmate.
Prosecutors have a strong interest, therefore, in making sure the right guy gets tried. Let’s not paint them all as participants in a lynch mob.
Second, let’s acknowlege what DNA is capable of. It cannot prove innocence, only guilt. Presence of DNA at a crime scene is a strong indicator the suspect was present, but its absence does not mean the suspect was not there. It is still possible to convict without DNA evidence or if other evidence is present, and these convictions, if the evidence is strong and the trial conducted fairly, are entirely valid.
Lastly, eyewitness testimony is valuable but not always entirely accurate, for by now well known reasons. (It’s easy to understand, for instance, why a rape victim might remember her rapist as bigger than he was.) It is best used in conjunction with other evidence. Defense attorneys know this, and usually go after eyewitness testimony as a weak spot in the prosecution’s case.
A mistake made by an eyewitness in testimony can still lead to a valid conviction if corroborating testimony covering other parts of the story or supporting evidence is present.
Disclaimer, IANAL.