Texas Frees Rape Convict Exonerated By DNA After 26-Year Term

Fox News ^ | Thursday, January 03, 2008 | AP

[in hoc signo vinces]

you should...jeeeez...Denver, the fruits and nuts have really turned that town into a gulag...

liberals always cry out police state when it comes to Republicans...but they’re the ones who really create one...

[logic]

the sense in Philly a couple of hundred years ago was something along the lines of, “better 10 guilty go free than one innocent be imprisoned.”

Not quite the case anymore is it?? More like 'We couldn't care less what really happened, take the plea or we WILL crucify you!'

[logic]

When they start paying jurors the salary that they make at their normal jobs, maybe more decent people would do it.

I get full pay for jury duty (one of good things about unions to balance all the bad...)

[rednesss]

"When they start paying jurors the salary that they make at their normal jobs, maybe more decent people would do it."

My employer gives me "jury duty" pay equal to my salary per my contract, didn't stop me from getting out of jury duty though. Wasn't even a consideration. Who wants to sit in the basement of the courthouse surrounded by a bunch of people not smart enough to get out of jury duty all morning while waiting to be called upon?

Years ago, I did get called and did go. Ended up on 2 juries. One an auto accident that settled just as we were seated, and the other an assault case in which we found the young defendant guilty.

[logic]

why wasn’t his DNA tested 10 or more years ago?

The quality of the equipment has improved steadily over that time, therefore the amount of material needed to do a good test has steadily decreased. Perhaps the sample was too small until just recently? More likely there wasn't manpower to look into old cases that were "solved" since there isn't enough manpower to look into real crimes now!!!

[logic]

Well, a DA can’t have too many ‘not guilties’ on his record or the sheeple won’t re-elect him/her...

That's the problem with the "system", it's not about guilt or innocence anymore, it's all about the record of convictions...

[rednesss]

"But, what all should really know is that our legal system is supposed to be designed to *primarily* prevent the innocent from getting swept up in the hunt, conviction and jailing of the guilty — and not the other way around (i.e., “getting all the crooks”)."

I think a famous man once said something to that effect. It has been long forgotten.

“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” William Blackstone.

[logic]

Very rarely, but it happens....

But, was he really guilty of murder? or just guilty of sleeping with his SIL before she was murdered by someone else??? :o)

[samtheman]

I certainly hope and expect that DNA evidence is going to result in better and fairer justice.

I have that same expectation.

One of the things that many people -- including, seemingly, many police and many prosecutors -- seem to forget or ignore or just plain don't care about is that when you convict an innocent man you are letting a guilty man go free.

And worse than that. When you use the power of the state, the police, and the prosecutors to convict an innocent man, the guilty man has, in effect, an army of paid civil servants working on his behalf to keep him free.

To me, this is almost as egregious as forcing a guilty man to sit in jail.

And it absolutely blows my mind that the police and prosecutors seem most of the time not to mind being used as a paid labor pool working for the guilty party. They keep trying to keep the innocent person in jail, just as if they loved doing the bidding of the guilty man.

I find that totally baffling.

[Puddleglum]

Good thing he wasn’t sentenced to death.

[dragnet2]

He’ll be getting a check from the state...rest assured.

There is no amount of money I'd trade 26 years of my life for.

[Kenny Bunk]

in Philly a couple of hundred years ago was something along the lines of, “better 10 guilty go free

Yo in Phillly those 10 guilty are what ...20-30* Democrat votes ... of course they gotta go free.

*Of course, I ain't countin your absentees here

[PAR35]

How do you know the evidence is any good - are you going to take the defense attorney’s word for it?

In a normal situation, the prosecutor acts as a check on the defense, and the defense acts as a check on the prosecution. Here, the system fails when the DA is even more eager than the defense to have the conviction vacated.

Perhaps the evidence is good, perhaps the guy should get out, but shouldn’t someone be representing the interests of the victim and of the taxpayers?

You know, this thread would be a good place to make up a Free Mumia ping list at FR.

[logic]

*Of course, I ain't countin your absentees here (LOL!!)

**Oh No!! The horrors!!! We can't be depriving the Dems of their hard won votes!!! /s

Remember vote early, vote often!!

[Kenny Bunk]

We here at the Rod and Gun Club are all for freeing Mumia on our range.

[microgood]

Perhaps the evidence is good, perhaps the guy should get out, but shouldn’t someone be representing the interests of the victim and of the taxpayers?

I think the interests of the victims are best served if the person that actually committed the crime is found. Keeping someone in jail that did not commit the crime does not serve their interest.

You know, this thread would be a good place to make up a Free Mumia ping list at FR.

Actually, Mumia should fry, and should not be used as an example here. I did more checking and found the guy this prosecutor replaced was none other than Fred Wade, of Jack Ruby and Roe vs Wade fame, who had admittedly wrongly convicted several people in his zeal to fight crime. Sounds like this prosecutor is cleaning up the mess created by his predecessor.

[PAR35]

I did more checking and found the guy this prosecutor replaced was none other than Fred Wade, of Jack Ruby and Roe vs Wade fame

Check around some more. The Republican that Watkins replaced wasn't named Wade. And the prosecutor in Roe v. Wade and of Jack Ruby wasn't named Fred Wade.

So, now that you've established that you know nothing about the situation, do you have anything more to add?

[microgood]

So, now that you've established that you know nothing about the situation, do you have anything more to add?

Sure. It was Henry Wade, who retired in 1986, that wrongly convicted this guy. So you are right, he did not replace him directly, but he was the prosecutor when this guy was wrongly convicted, and was overzealous in many prosecutions, some that he admitted to. Obviously, he did not admit to this one since he is now dead.