Post by skyloom on Jan 12, 2006 10:38:45 GMT -5
In their discussions about the decision to test DNA evidence in Mr. Coleman's case that might prove him not guilty and so wrongfully executed, some pros mention his record of prior arrests on an attempted rape charge and on an indecent exposure charge.
I think we're all aware of the fact that police and others, in their effort to get a particularly troublesome individual off the streets, will pressure witnesses, withhold exculpatory evidence, fudge test results, and use a few other tricks of their trade to "prove" that the individual committed a crime of which he is factually innocent.
At other times, police round up the likely suspects and then look to place one of them at the crime scene while at the same time doing next to nothing to find evidence which could point to another perpetrator entirely.
I believe that many, many wrongful convictions have come about because of this kind of sloppy police work.
I do understand that most policemen and women are not well paid and that they work long hours. I'm sure it's terribly frustrating and discouraging to them when a suspect walks out with a smug grin on his face after the police have worked days and weeks to build a case against him and are genuinely convinced that he is guilty... but they can't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
At the same time, simply because an individual "is no angel" generally speaking, that is no reason to ignore evidence that points to his innocence in any one particular case.
Of course I would prefer that we in the U.S. end the death penalty completely and perhaps use some of the money saved to hire more police officers. I read in the news today, with reference to Tom Capano's case, that over $1 million was spent to sentence him to death... and now that sentence has been overturned. That $1 million, invested wisely, could return $50,000. a year that would more than support hiring a police officer, and that hiring could lessen the work burden on the rest of the officers. Or, it could support, for example, a drug rehabilitation program for at least one individual, possibly preventing that individual from getting involved in more serious crime.
But, I digress. Basically, I wonder what can be done to counter the frame of mind that says "who cares... this individual is a SOB who has gotten off on technicalities far too often... his luck ran out this time," even though the SOB is factually innocent, this time.
I think we're all aware of the fact that police and others, in their effort to get a particularly troublesome individual off the streets, will pressure witnesses, withhold exculpatory evidence, fudge test results, and use a few other tricks of their trade to "prove" that the individual committed a crime of which he is factually innocent.
At other times, police round up the likely suspects and then look to place one of them at the crime scene while at the same time doing next to nothing to find evidence which could point to another perpetrator entirely.
I believe that many, many wrongful convictions have come about because of this kind of sloppy police work.
I do understand that most policemen and women are not well paid and that they work long hours. I'm sure it's terribly frustrating and discouraging to them when a suspect walks out with a smug grin on his face after the police have worked days and weeks to build a case against him and are genuinely convinced that he is guilty... but they can't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
At the same time, simply because an individual "is no angel" generally speaking, that is no reason to ignore evidence that points to his innocence in any one particular case.
Of course I would prefer that we in the U.S. end the death penalty completely and perhaps use some of the money saved to hire more police officers. I read in the news today, with reference to Tom Capano's case, that over $1 million was spent to sentence him to death... and now that sentence has been overturned. That $1 million, invested wisely, could return $50,000. a year that would more than support hiring a police officer, and that hiring could lessen the work burden on the rest of the officers. Or, it could support, for example, a drug rehabilitation program for at least one individual, possibly preventing that individual from getting involved in more serious crime.
But, I digress. Basically, I wonder what can be done to counter the frame of mind that says "who cares... this individual is a SOB who has gotten off on technicalities far too often... his luck ran out this time," even though the SOB is factually innocent, this time.