BS: Now this is SCARY

Subject: Now this is SCARY
From: Gary T
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 01:06 AM

I read an article in the paper about a fellow who was finally exonerated of a capital crime by DNA evidence (details here). Apparently there were many inconsistencies and other indicators of a wrongful conviction, but the new evidence cliched it and resulted in a pardon for the accused (after serving 17+ years). Now for the scary part--a sheriff's deputy is quoted saying "I feel as strongly about the case as I did back then," thinking the accused was involved.

I have seen this attitude in numerous instances over the years. Some law enforcement people (police and prosecutors) seem to be absolutely unable to accept the possibility that they are/were mistaken in feeling/thinking/knowing so-and-so did it. Sometimes it seems that even if the actual perpetrator, the victim, and God himself appeared with positive physical proof that the suspect could not possibly have done the crime, these impeccable crime-fighters would cling with unshakable certainty to the notion that he still did it anyway.

I know that dealing with the criminal element exposes one to some nasty stuff, and it's understandable--and maybe desirable--that law enforcement personnel be generally skeptical about reversals of convictions. But c'mon, even in the face of essentially incontrovertible evidence? We still hear pat lines like "The system worked the way it's supposed to" and "I see no reason to re-open the case." It makes me cringe.

What makes a supposedly rational person flat out ignore cold, hard facts in these situations?

Subject: RE: BS: Now this is SCARY
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 01:25 AM

Some people care more about their careers than they do about other people. I've seen it many times in many different contexts. I'm sure everyone has.

Subject: RE: BS: Now this is SCARY
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 03:23 AM

Same reasons people believe in their version of a Supreme Being, I think. They have to believe in something, just in this case it is their own misguided sense of justice etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Now this is SCARY
From: okthen
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 03:43 AM

A man in UK,was sentenced to life (normally 20 years)he had the mental age of 11. When first arrested he was questioned for 36 hours by police without legal represntation, he served 27 years, because although eligible for parole many years ago, he insisted his innocence, and was refused parole.

He has now been freed, I think someone found proof he couldn't possibly have been guilty.

it's a dirty little world, for some.

cheers

bill

Subject: RE: BS: Now this is SCARY
From: Brendy
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 04:04 AM

I forget the name of the guy just at the minute, but he was one of the Law Lords in the English judicial system.
He calmly announced in an interview one day that if he had had his way, he would have executed both The Birmingham Six and The Guildford Four.

B.

Subject: RE: BS: Now this is SCARY
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 08:56 AM

Did you ever notice how some very small minded people get into some very high powered positions? And Gary, you're right. It is scary and it should be to all of us. Our freedom and indded our lives depend on those in authority doing their jobs in a sane and proper manner. (Which should include being able to accept incontrovertable evidence.) Unfortunately, noone likes to admit they're wrong and it seems the powers that be most of all. Wish I had a cure for the whole mess but I don't. Have a good day all. Kindest reguards, Neil

Subject: RE: BS: Now this is SCARY
From: Willie-O
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 09:08 AM

There have been three high-profile exonerations of innocent men convicted of murder in Canada, namely:

• Donald Marshall--11 years served
• David Milgaard--23 years served
• Guy Paul Morin--I think he did 9 years

For each of these cases I have heard comments remarkably similar to the one quoted by Gary at the top of this thread, always by law enforcement officers involved in the case. When DNA proved that they couldn't have committed the actual murder, the belief shifted to "they were involved." In the cases of Marshall, a native man, and Milgaard, who was passing through town and was low on money and gas, they were both the types of people who sherriffs just want to get off the streets--"whatever they might exactly have been doing, they're undesirables." (Morin was a slightly different type--the oddball loner neighbour, but one who was completely harmless.)

Let's face it, in the current law-and-order-for-political-points climate, "a criminal must be found" for every crime. Doesn't matter as much if it's the right one, just nail someone and get him off the street.

And to paraphrase Kurt Weill (?), "There may come a day, when a killer must be found;
I've got a little list!"

Willie-O

Subject: RE: BS: Now this is SCARY
From: annamill
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 09:12 AM

These are great arguments against the death penalty. Like Hurricane Carter.

Love, annamill

Subject: RE: BS: Now this is SCARY
From: Troll
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 09:22 AM

Willie-O it's from The Mikado by Gilbert and Sullivan.
"If ever it should happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list. I've got a little list
Of societal offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed. They never would be missed..."
As The Mikado himself says, " My object all sublime, I shall achieve in time,
To let the punishment fit the crime, the punishment fit the crime..."
Search "Gilbert and Sullivan". All of their lyrics are available on various sites.
Re: the police attitude, some people refuse to bleieve that man has walked on the moon or that the earth isn't flat.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Now this is SCARY
From: Wavestar
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 11:26 AM

Sadly, some people never do get exonerated. A few months ago, I think, a man was executed in Texas for a crime that he, to all appearances, did not commit. New evidence that would have proved him innocent was found and brought forward, but the judge refused to see it, and the man died.

Some people won't beleive in the Holocaust, either. As long as they think SOMEONE is suffering for the crime committed, they feel safer, maybe.

-J

Subject: RE: BS: Now this is SCARY
From: Bert
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 11:53 AM

There was a case in Mississippi a few years back when a judge refused a retrial saying that new evidence is not reason enough for a new trial even if that evidence can prove innocence. I believe that the 'criminal' is still in jail.

Subject: RE: BS: Now this is SCARY
From: Gary T
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 12:34 PM

Yeah, bert, that's an example of the "system" being more important than its purported goals. I'm still cringing.

Subject: RE: BS: Now this is SCARY
From: Skeptic
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 12:49 PM

Since starting to use DNA evidence to reopen cases, something like 84 people have been found innocent. There is a group in NYC that is actively looking into questionable cases and I believe that California is trying (or maybe has) passed a law to give convicted felons the right to DNA testing.

The refusal to accept that you might be wrong, even in the face of evidence is human and can be tragic. What happens when we use DNA to prove someone is innocent and he's already been executed? Apologize?

Subject: RE: BS: Now this is SCARY
From: Skeptic
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 12:51 PM

Part II. (hit the send button too soon)

Read "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer. Interesting take on why people believe and how they act.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Now this is SCARY
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 01:12 PM

I have heard of a case that is even MORE outrageous and scary.

You all have heard the maxim, "A defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty." What I didn't realize, until I saw this report on TV, is that according to the law in some states, once a defendant IS proven guilty (and in law this means he has been convicted) then the rules of evidence change, and the burden of proof shifts to the defendant.

In other words, in the INITIAL TRIAL ONLY, the state has to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty. In an appeal that is BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE (as opposed to based on an interpretation of law, which is the basis of most appeals), then THE DEFENDANT has to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he is innocent. If, on the appeal, the judge thinks he MIGHT be guilty, then the original conviction stands, and the defendant stays in prison!

In the case in question, a man was convicted of rape and murder. There were no witnesses. I don't remember what evidence was produced against him, but it did NOT include DNA evidence. When, long after the original trial, a DNA test was done on the semen found in the victim's body, it was shown that the semen definitely was NOT the defendant's.

In the appeal, the prosecutor introduced the hypothesis that the defendant had an unknown accomplice, that the accomplice raped the woman, and then the defendant killed her. No evidence was produced that there actually WAS an accomplice. The idea that there might be an accomplice was never even mentioned in the original trial. But since the defendant was unable to prove that there WAS NO accomplice, the conviction was upheld, and the man is still in prison. And it looks as if he will stay there unless the governor grants him a pardon or clemency.

The TV show I saw included an interview with a Supreme Court justice of the state in question on the interpretation of the law. The amazing thing was that she showed no outrage, no regret, no sympathy with the defendant, no emotion of any kind. She simply explained, in a calm, dispassionate manner, why the law went against the defendant, as if she was explaining why he had to pay a small tax or something.

Unfortunately, I can't provide a source for this information, but I will post it if I can get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Now this is SCARY
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 01:44 PM

Jim, what you state is true and obviously makes the appeals process very difficult. Gary's original post I think often gets down to some form of perverse pride or the complete inability to admit that we have been plain, flatass, wrong! Tying both points together, and for the best example I can think of, examine the Shephard case.

The arrest and subsequent trial of Sam Shephard was a complete travesty. Although he was eventually found not guilty in a second trial, that did not change the "verdict" in many minds. The people of Cleveland and the State of Ohio was sure that Shephard was guilty. The original trial and verdict (not to mention the murder itself) was so well known and publicized, that I believe its somehow impossible to ever actually clear the name, though his son, Sam Reece Shephard, has tried for years.

Sam R. has accumulated a mass of evidence including positive DNA and even a confession, but just last year, a jury in Cleveland (Cuyahoga County) refused to say that Sam Shephard was innocent. Yes, he had been found not guilty, but Sam R. wants his father's name cleared in his mother's murder. Yet, despite overwhelming evidence, the jury found otherwise. Its a bit of the mass hysteria kicking in here in defense of the courts and people of Ohio, Cleveland, and Bay Village. Simply unbelievable and it shames me to think that this state cannot admit when they are wrong.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Now this is SCARY
From: GUEST,Petr
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 06:30 PM

Yes I agree that this is an argument against capital punishment. There was a recent documentary on Frontline on this particular topic. There have been a number of people on death row some for 10 to 20 years and once the DNA evidence has been re-examined (now that the technology is available) shockingly there were some appeal courts where the judges ruled that this was not compelling evidence to re-open the case. (Someone elses DNA and not the convicted mans on the body - not compelling evidence!) The DA would claim that the attacker had an accomplice, that he used a condom and that the victim was a slut and slept around, anything but refuse to admit that the man may be innocent. One man was tried, convicted and executed for murder claiming innocence all the way, they refused to test the DNA, even after his execution the family fought to test the DNA to prove his innocence and the DAs office fought it, Eventually the DNA evidence was destroyed by order of the state court. Theres an interesting article in last months New Yorker about the large number of executions being ordered by women judges in Texas. One of Britains last executions was a man convicted of murdering his wife and it later turned out the neighbour was a serial killer when the police dug up a number of bodies and he confessed. I would say that capital punishment is not worth one innocent life. Petr

Subject: RE: BS: Now this is SCARY
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 07:02 PM

this, from the Irish Times, and weep

At least they don't put innocent people to death in British prisons these days. But there are probably still plenty of them in the prisons.

And nothing ever happens to the people who perjured themsleves or suppressed or concocted the evidence to sned them there, or the judges whio misdirected juries. They always seem to have retired by the time it comes to light.

And that was Timothy Evans, hung for John Christie's murders. The song about it by Ewan McColl is in the DT, and it tells the story. Maybe it needs an added Texas verse.

Subject: RE: BS: Now this is SCARY
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 08:11 PM

Petr: thanks for jogging my memory. Here is a link to the PBS program called Frontline: The Case for Innocence. I believe this program was what inspired my previous post. Of the four cases described there, I'm not sure which was the one had in mind - but it hardly matters. All four are horror stories.

Subject: RE: BS: Now this is SCARY
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 08:48 PM

Jim Dixon and Petr, I too saw that show on Frontline. It was one of those shows you wish I went to bed that night truly miserable. What's worse than the effect on me is to think of young people seeing that show and realizing that's the kind of system we currently have. I would hope, though, that some of those young people seeing the show would be inspired to make a difference in the years to come.

A few weeks ago, there was an update on one of the men who was attempting to get a DNA test done- Remember that black guy with the family- been there 12 years or so?- and the request kept being turned down. In the paper, it mentioned that it was finally done and he was set free. But he'll never get those years back...

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Now this is SCARY
From: MarkS
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 12:00 AM

Seems those in positions of authority in law enforcement, from the police on the beat to the states attornys, have a psychological need to be dominant. Less interested in law enforcement than showing who is boss. There is no wonder then that even after exculpatory evidence in uncovered, they remain unconvinced.