Anti-Smoking Court Ruling So Insane It Sounds Like a Comedy Skit
- Thread starter georged
- Start date
- Status
No, he's a dude that was innocent, but was executed.
I know who you are, and you forgot to add $$$ to my commissary account. Thanks for NOTHING. :
:
I know who you are, and you forgot to add $$$ to my commissary account. Thanks for NOTHING. :
:
I'd been very disappointed if you hadn't interjected that Warren...and you're correct...I'm sure that's what it was...and all of the other circumstances just a coincidence.
Anyway, Webb's story isn't even the tip of the iceberg. But as Kola said, that's not a discussion that can be had here...and even if we did it would accomplish nothing. Over and out.
Crap! I got sucked into a movie discussion Sorry "brian", should have watched the movie trailer first. Hollywood treatments aren't my cuppa tea.
I don’t have a number for you Capt’n...which is why I didn’t include one. But my use of the word “healthy” (which was probably a poor choice) is due to reading and hearing numerous such stories over the years. In a perfect world it should never happen...but my perception is that it happens too often.
I hope that perception is wrong, but I don’t think it is. Even if it’s only something like 5% that’s too much, IMO. And I strongly suspect it’s at least that much. Again, just my opinion and perception.
@ warren: I included the trailer for convenience sake. I was very well acquainted with Webb’s story long before that movie was ever made.
Yeah, that's not really how it goes down. Like most things it varies state to state:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/prison-labor-in-america/406177/
The percentage? From my experience, I very rarely arrested a guilty suspect, many proclaimed their innocence over and over.. So the percentage must be very high indeed.
It seems far more likely to me that guilty people go free or plead down to a lessor charge. Most of the "innocent" people stories I've heard weren't people walking down the street minding their own business and framed by the cops. They're usually people involved in crime but get their convictions overturned later on technicalities.
I believe you’re correct that many guilty also get off...but I don’t consider it to be an either/or question. In fact it only makes sense to me that a dysfunctional judicial system will result in both. The way the courts function and the manner in which trials can be controlled and manipulated is pretty scary in many cases.
From what I’ve noticed over the years, the wrongful convictions seem to tend to be most often in certain types of cases (but not exclusively). Rape cases may be the most common.
Money buys justice. Does O.J. ring a bell. In my line of work I've helped folks stay out of prison and even cleared one from death row, but I've also helped put folks in prison. The system is what it is. Btw, I've never been hired privately for defense. It's always been through the State. The system is imperfect, but it beats Mexico or any other foreign countries.
Funny, because rape cases were exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote that. Again, they don't just drag random people off the street and frame them for rape. People that get arrested for rape are involved with the rape victim in some way. For instance maybe one of several people involved in a gang rape only helped hold the victim down, then later gets their "rape" conviction overturned and the media trumpets them as "innocent" when they're not.
Yes, that is unfortunately too often the case. Or it may buy injustice.
Good to hear, and good for you...the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is supposed to be the aim. Unfortunately that is not always an easy thing to get at.
Well, I certainly wasn’t referring to “gang rapes”. But there have been cases where there isn’t much more than an accusation to go on. And I recall instances where DNA evidence ended up exonerating someone after they had done something like 20 years already.
It may come as a surprise, but I don’t keep a scrapbook of these things, so I'm going on memory and don’t have anything readily available to cite. I could do a web search on it, but then I’d be accused of “confirmation bias” or something.
OJ? Money wasn't involved in that decision. A rather inept DA and staff blew that one. From what I've read it was a solid case, the defense put on a better show and they only have to convince one of twelve. The prosecution has to convince all twelve and they simply weren't up to it.
Warren, that show costs money. The DNA experts who called DNA fallibile, then went on to free convicted inmates due to its infalibilty. That's money, not science talking.
Yeah, I'm not talking about that, but rather cases where there was no DNA evidence involved originally, and then later became available (obviously older cases). But that's just one example...there have been others.
Again, I don't know what the actual percentages are, but I do think it's a bit naïve to assume that fair trials always occur. A lot of people seem to have this perception that prosecutors are always the good guys...but there have been cases where they have intentionally withheld exonerating evidence.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that there has never been an innocent person convicted ever, but I think it's extremely rare, certainly much less than 1% and probably less than 1/10th of 1%. There's no way one in a hundred people in jail are random innocent people that cops decided to frame, let alone one in twenty (5%).
Again, in the rape example where there was no DNA evidence originally and later DNA evidence showed someone else (an ADDITIONAL person) was involved doesn't mean the first person wasn't involved also, but it's always portrayed that way. Cops don't arrest random people off the street and charge them with rape.
Again, in the rape example where there was no DNA evidence originally and later DNA evidence showed someone else (an ADDITIONAL person) was involved doesn't mean the first person wasn't involved also, but it's always portrayed that way. Cops don't arrest random people off the street and charge them with rape.
I was referencing the OJ trial. He could have hired a first year law student or had a court appointed lawyer against that bunch of prosecutors. They were too smug and confident, clumsy and slow to react. It's a shame he had money and could foot the bill himself.
An aside: No so-called expert would state DNA is infallible. Reporters will. TV shows will. Hollywood will. An expert witness in the area would not. That's simply a way to loose credibility. An expert should only speak in probabilities and odds, pointing out matching areas on a graph or diagram. They will stick with the science and let the judges/attorneys interpret for the jurors. The same with tool mark evidence and fingerprints.
You would never hear a fingerprint expert testify that a print came from a specific person. He would simply state the statistical probability and let the jurors arrive at their own conclusion. He would put up two prints on a screen, one from the crime scene, the other from the suspect and then point out the matches. Usually DNA is conclusive if it has a proper chain of evidence and it can be proven there is no degradation. Those are but two areas which can be attacked in court with some success that I know of.
An aside: No so-called expert would state DNA is infallible. Reporters will. TV shows will. Hollywood will. An expert witness in the area would not. That's simply a way to loose credibility. An expert should only speak in probabilities and odds, pointing out matching areas on a graph or diagram. They will stick with the science and let the judges/attorneys interpret for the jurors. The same with tool mark evidence and fingerprints.
You would never hear a fingerprint expert testify that a print came from a specific person. He would simply state the statistical probability and let the jurors arrive at their own conclusion. He would put up two prints on a screen, one from the crime scene, the other from the suspect and then point out the matches. Usually DNA is conclusive if it has a proper chain of evidence and it can be proven there is no degradation. Those are but two areas which can be attacked in court with some success that I know of.
I think some of you might want to revisit the "non-violent" moniker for unjust prison sentences. Perhaps "victomless" would be a better term. In my neck of the woods, the opioid epidemic has tangentally driven a huge number of theft and burglary offenses.
Our legislature, in their infinite wisdom has adjusted the bail and sentencing requirements to make "non-violent" crimes like theft, vehicle theft, and burglary felonies little more than speeding tickets in consequences.
As a victim of opioid drug users stealing my boat, attempting to break into my garage and stealing thousands of dollars in tools from my property, I'd hardly agree that these non-violent offenders don't deserve to be guests of our prison system for a significant portion of their lives.
Our legislature, in their infinite wisdom has adjusted the bail and sentencing requirements to make "non-violent" crimes like theft, vehicle theft, and burglary felonies little more than speeding tickets in consequences.
As a victim of opioid drug users stealing my boat, attempting to break into my garage and stealing thousands of dollars in tools from my property, I'd hardly agree that these non-violent offenders don't deserve to be guests of our prison system for a significant portion of their lives.
- Status