• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

If you were convicted of murder that you didnt do?

SUPERSTOCKRACER

Well-Known Member
Local time
5:02 PM
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
6,372
Reaction score
1,344
Location
Oblivion
How would you react and how would you handle it?
I couldnt imagine going to prison for life for something i didnt do.
There are so many horror stories about innocent people going to jail for crimes they didnt commit.
 
A local guy here was just released from prison after 18 years for a crime that he did not commit thanks to new DNA testing.
 
If DNA testing is so accurate that it can be used to overturn a conviction, then why isn't it accurate enough to convict someone who was acquitted? The concept of double jeopardy was implemented to protect people from repeatedly being prosecuted by a government, but that was before DNA testing made it possible to tell if someone was acquitted was actually guilty.
 
That seems to happen a lot in Dallass. And a few years back the big state lab in houston got busted for falsafying dna tests. Of course most of the forgery victims were black. But now there is a new top cop in town and he is doing what he can to see that justice is done, rather than posturing over a high conviction rate.
 
I wonder how the people (cops, lab techs,police chiefs, and even lawyers) would react if they got convicted of withholding when the person gets freed after 10,15,18 years because somebody found evidence that was withheld? Let them spend some time behind bars and see how their family likes that. I can't stand a dirty cop. They swore an oath to uphold the law.
 
DNA testing now is a lot better than 15 years ago.. that's how some of the conviction are being over turned.
 
If you were convicted of murder that you didnt do?

You're Going to Hell............
 
The potential for withholding evidence doesn't bother me as much as plea bargaining does. A prosecutor threatens to throw everything they can at someone, then says "plead guilty to this other count and things will go better for you." How many innocent guys are in prison right now because some prosecutor scared them into making a false confession by convincing them they couldn't win in court and would go to prison for a lot longer if they were found guilty?

I saw a lot of cases of this when I was with a sheriff's office in MD, especially with sex offenses. The state's attorney would scare the crap out of some innocent guy, and get him to plead to a lesser charge just to keep his case clearance count up, then the guy has to live with being a convicted sex offender all his life! The other cases that drove me nuts were the false claims of rape/abuse that women would file, then when it was proved they lied about the whole deal, that same state's attorney refused to prosecute the liar because they didn't want to take heat from feminist groups. Just pathetic!
 
Bruzilla, well said. We dont have "as many" of the same issues here in Canada but our system is far from perfect. We do not have elected Prosecutors or Sheriff's that can "sometimes" be driven more by political aspirations than pride in doing what is just. No one can truly imagine what it would be like to have your years stolen by a rogue cop, prosecutor or crappy lab work unless you experienced it. There are many reasons why people are wrongfully convicted but they are well known and most can easily be corrected. As for false alagations of rape etc from female victims; it varies from jurisdiction why there is reluctance to prosecute but a common theme is they do not want to deter "legitimate" victims from coming forward. I'm not saying I agree with that reasoning but it is a common reason.

Many jurisdictions have also "smartened up" over the years and usually don't hold back evidence like they used to unless it will taint a jury againt the defendant. A professional prosecutor or law enforcement officer will want nothing to do with a wrongful conviction and will do everything they can to avoid it. When the only desire you have is to be as professional as you can while maintaining the integrity of the office/system you represent then it is always easy to do the right thing.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"
Edmund Burke
 
As for false alagations of rape etc from female victims; it varies from jurisdiction why there is reluctance to prosecute but a common theme is they do not want to deter "legitimate" victims from coming forward.

Yep, that was the excuse I always heard too. I remember one of the last cases I worked all too well. The story was some guy raped a girl at a party. Based on her statement, and forensic evidence of sexual intercourse, a grand jury indicted the guy and we arrested him. He was 19, couldn't make bail, and was stuck in the county jail for months awaiting trial. As part of getting ready for trial, we did a follow-up interview with the girl, and a lot of her statement changed, which made us suspicious. When we started pointing out how her story had changed, she got upset and finally said "If you don't believe me you can ask X and Y (her friends) because they were there!" This came as a shock to us because we had been told there were no witnesses! Then she immediately retracted her statement about X and Y being there.

We detained this little POS while we called X and Y and it turned out they were there, and they both reported a rape had taken place, but she had raped the guy! The guy had been drunk and half passed out on a bed at a party, and the girl had taken off his clothes and had sex with him. When we confronted her with the statements from her friends, she copped to the whole deal. She said she had had sex with the guy, got worried that she might have gotten pregnant, and made up the whole rape story in case she did.... not because she did get pregnant, but just in case she did!

So the guy gets released after spending three months in jail and losing a good job, will always have an arrest record for sexual battery and rape, and he's in the MD and Federal sex offender databases for the rest of his life. And the girl? Nothing. We were told to not even bother filing any charges against her because "some will say that unless a woman can prove 100% she was raped she might not come forward." I've dealt with some rape cases, and I think it's an insult to women to make this case. They think less of the women who do this crap than I do.

Victims of rape tend to fall into two categories: those who want to hide that they were raped and those who want to cut the nuts off the guy who raped them. There's nothing that will encourage or discourage the first group from reporting a rape because they will not do it. As for the second group, there is nothing that will discourage them.
 
Auto Transport Service
Back
Top