DNA Exonerates Man Jailed in 1984

Associated Press ^ | Sunday, July 28, 2002 | JIM SUHR

[umgud]

I was refering to cases based on this type of evidence. If the cops catch a bank robber in the act, there is little need to perform DNA testing. But I agree with you, that in any case where DNA could exonerate a person, it should be used.

[maxwell]

you would be singing a different tune

Yeah like what? Zippety-doo-dah-squat? Cause that's how much of a difference I personally could make.

Higher expectations are way righteous and all that, but one has to keep it real...

[Dog Gone]

Neither, but the adversarial system is superior to your suggestion.

By far.

[adversarial]

I made no suggestion, other than to honestly try not to punish the innocent or allow the guilty to go free....what part of that stepped on your toes Bozo?

[Dog Gone]

None, until now when you resorted to juvenile name-calling.

[FatherTorque]

I thought this story was ironic, since we just had a long thread complaining about defense attorneys who defend clients whom we believe are guilty.

Not only that, how many threads have I seen recently where people had no problem with the cops working over suspected criminals, or all the yahoos around here who think it's justice if criminals get raped in prison.

Sure the system isn't perfect, but no system run by man can ever be. There's lots of things I don't like about it, but I haven't seen anything any better in any other country.

[Age of Reason]

Preliminary DNA tests on evidence once believed destroyed has exonerated a man imprisoned in 1984 for raping a college student

1. Before I feel sorry for this guy, I'd like to know how much of a model citizen he was before he got locked up.

The victim had identified Johnson as her attacker and there was other circumstantial evidence that helped convict him

2. I hope all this DNA innocence stuff doesn't prove to be another one of those scientific theories that eventually turns out to be flawed--it seems no scientific theory stands for long.

[Dog Gone]

Before I feel sorry for this guy, I'd like to know how much of a model citizen he was before he got locked up.

I don't think that's the way to look at it. Let's assume he was a street punk. 18 years of his life still has been taken away for something he did not do. Some murderors spend less time in prison for their crime.

You don't have to admire the guy to admit that he had something priceless taken away from him.

[Age of Reason]

I don't think that's the way to look at it. Let's assume he was a street punk. 18 years of his life still has been taken away for something he did not do. Some murderors spend less time in prison for their crime.

You don't have to admire the guy to admit that he had something priceless taken away from him.

I don't know what you mean by street punk.

But let's suppose he was someone who had been convicted of raping and torturing children, who was picked up again after the parole board set him free for being rehabilitated.

Like I said, before I feel sorry for him, I'd like to know what he did before he was locked up.

[neutrino]

I want everyone who takes these positions to sit down and come up with a better system.

First off...I'm not blaming the lawyers. However, that being said, it occurs to me that systems are likely to behave according to a distribution curve.

We can have a very high probability that the guilty will be punished - not a certainty, but close to it. However, we'll punish more innocent people. It's the classic "To make an omelete, one must break some eggs" argument.

Or, we can have a very high probability that the innocent will be acquitted. Along with this, we'll have some who are guilty get off.

Merely saying that we'll go high tech (DNA, some development of lie detection technology, and so forth) is an evasion. We still have to come up with a model for how we treat borderline cases.

As matters stand - imperfect though they are - we seem to have a fairly reasonable balance. Most guilty parties get caught and punished eventually (Yeah, I know...they can hurt a lot of people in the process.), and the innocent generally (Yeah, I know...not always.) get off.

Rich defendents have a better chance than poor ones; and rich people get better medical care, better security, and a better table at the club. That's the way life is...the alternative would be for Party Members or some other elite to get the goodies.

So, I suppose that means we have about as good a system as we can get. Even considering juries and the folks who can't get out of jury duty serve.

[tomkat]

A man gets off on a technicality after nearly twenty years

SURELY you are (lamely) attempting some sort of sarcasm ???

[Dog Gone]

Well, he was 25 when he entered prison. Subtract at least a year, maybe two, from the time of the crime. I don't think he had time to be a paroled criminal who had done hard time.

Here's a guy who was sent to prison about the age when most kids start their first job after college. Now he's 47, and he's been making license plates because he was falsely accused.

I would agree that he'd probably be a more sympathetic figure (and have made national news by now) if he had been some straight-A student at BYU at the time of his arrest.

But I doubt that he was. Regardless, he was the one who was raped by our system. Perhaps it was unavoidable. Perhaps this guy deserved punishment for some other crime that he never was caught committing. It's still not fair.

[Eva]

I ignored that thread about O'Reilly's rant because I thought that O'Reilly was an idiot. Everyone is entitled to the best defense that he can get. Period. It is not the responsibility of the defendent to prove his innocense. It is the responsibility of the state to prove guilt. It is unfortunate that some cases come down to a he said, she said, but it's a fact of life.

[Eva]

I should have added that it is also unfortunate that sometimes juries get carried away with emotion and convict the wrong person. I heard once, that if you are truly innocent of a crime that you should opt out of the jury trial and go for a hearing evidence before the judge. The judge is usually brighter and fairer than a jury of your peers.

[lawdude]

"We still have to come up with a model for how we treat borderline cases. "

I think we do. I know of no borderline cases that are looking at the death penalty. (I can only speak of Arizona). Prosecutors are hesitant to ask for the death penalty in those cases. Should the borderline arise during evidence at trial, the jury will take that into account.

Now, is all this perfect? NO. But can you tell me of one instance in modern death penalty case law where an innocent party has been executed? Are there imperfections? YES. But, I believe the cases wherein a "guilty" person is subsequently found innocent, prove the near perfection of the American criminal justice system.