This is a carry over from GQ and this needs pitting more then anything I can pit. What the hell is wrong with the justice system when they fight DNA testing for a prisoner that could determine innocence or guilt without a doubt? Are they that fucking egotistical that they want a “notch” on the prison walls rather then the truth?
In the GQ’s answers it seems to be the way it works, but why? Can a lawyer possibly justify that?
We pay umpteen millions of dollars to keep them behind bars wouldn’t it be cheaper to just test the fucking evidence the minute DNA testing became possible? Or is it the fear of a lawsuit for false imprisonment? If thats the fucking case those who opposed the testing should have to go spend 19 years behind fucking bars for being assholes.
19 years behind bars, a crime he didn’t commit, two small children he never got to see grow up, a family torn apart, and that wasn’t bad enough the procecutors still had to fight allowing DNA testing. Ignorant bastards.
I agree. 19 years? That is sickening. If I were the prosecutor, I’d slit my wrists and donate whatever was left to the family. I sometimes think we need a higher barrier to entry for prosecutors.
Geeze, what are you people, soft on crime? Besides, one guy gets DNA testing, then they all want it. That equipment isn’t free you know! Damn money-spending criminal-coddling bleeding hearts.
I can certainly understand why prosecutors oppose DNA testing. They have nothing to gain, and everything to lose; they already have a conviction under their belt, and DNA testing can only make them look bad. If there was ever proof that prosecutors care only about their conviction rate, and nothing about justice, this is it.
Tongue-in-cheek, I realize, but you make an excellent point: the death penalty is absolutely unconscionable for the very reason illustrated here. Although the man here was not sentenced to death, others have been on death row, with execution dates set, when their innocence was shown through DNA.
Would you be willing to extend some ire to the police who falsely placed a “Rapist” designation of the alleged man’s mug shot? I sure as heck do. That action may have wrongly influenced to victim to pick him from the line-up. I’m guessing she (victim) may have been somewhat incapacitated since this occurred in a hospital and that “R” designation very well may have had some influence on her memory.
I see the police as being the reason an innocent man spent any time in jail in the first place. The prosecutors at first worked with the evidence they had and with an identification by the victim I can’t blame them for putting him in jail.
Later though, I’m in total agreement that prosecutors fighting a DNA test to reveal the truth approaches criminal behavior.
I’m not sure I agree. The “R” designation was applied to accused rapists; the man was in fact an accused, although acquitted, rapist.
Of course the entire procedure is absurd, and taints any identification, but there is no suggestion that the police did anything falsely or maliciously.
That is precisely the reason I no longer support the death penalty. Those incidents of people on death-row being proven innocent chills my bones.
BTW, I’ve been trying to find stats on how many people have been freed by DNA, death row and otherwise. Anybody know where to get these numbers? My Google-fu is weak today.
I agree the PD that used the “R” on the pictures shoulder at least some of the blame for the original conviction, and should have to shoulder some of the liability in a lawsuit (If thats how it works?) But that was how he got convicted the current prosecutor that tried to deny him a DNA test is the one I fault more for trying to keep him behind bars. With the “R” on the pictures that alone should of been ample evidence to allow the DNA testing, but no, a judge had to order it.
I guess that’s my point. If you’ve already been acquitted, how can a police department still consider and identify you as accused? Be it several individuals or departmental procedure, it strikes me that the police are in part responsible for his incarceration in the first place. The prosecutor’s unforgivable action actually came after the fact.
You’re kidding me. You’re allowed to designate someone like that if they’ve even been accused? I mean, it taints it even if the guy has been convicted, but at least there’s some sort of rationale there, even a weak one.