I think I may have a unique perspective to offer, for good or ill. I actually work with one of the first guys to be released on the Texas Amnesty Project. He spent 17 years for a crime he didn't commit, and he now works in conjunction with several lawyers in our firm to continue making strides in legislation. It's never going to be a perfect system, but it does improve by leaps and bounds under the radar. The trick is to arrange payment for these DNA tests - they're not cheap, and everyone knows any system like this is already underfunded. They're working on these kinds of things too.
The DEFENSE should have called for DNA testing. Prosecution has no need for such things if they believe they already have sufficient evidence for a conviction, which apparently they thought they did. Clearly the jury believed they did. Not everyone that gets convicted is convicted wrongly, and I won't make a judgment call in a case like this either. I'm just saying, there was due process. It's not always right, but it's not always wrong either. These things are never as simple as black and white. The good news is I can tell you the conviction process has improved considerably since '95, because of situations just like this. I've learned many things between working at a law firm and talking with my exonoree buddy. He'll tell you himself, most people who end up inside are guilty. Those few that aren't, it's fairly easy to get a bead on them.
My question would be, since he's been there since '95, why has no one else come forward with an offer of DNA testing? There are all sorts of organizations out there that could have dropped the money down for this. Has he himself been working towards his own defense and appeals, or has he been stewing in his own juices all this time? This says his team has been active, and it sounds like he's got a strong case, but do we truly know, or is this what we're being fed? I hate to say it, but I trust the press less than I trust the justice system. I'm glad to see the crusaders out there, working towards a better system, but keep in mind, the system is a work in progress, and it doesn't work on an agenda. You want true change to it, you vote for judges, you vote for congressmen, and you vote for city councils and mayors. Track these people. Hold them to their promises. Build their careers or drop 'em like a bad habit if they flounder. It seems like everyone's willing to cry out at the 11th hour, but nobody seems willing to do their part before that.
no subject
I think I may have a unique perspective to offer, for good or ill. I actually work with one of the first guys to be released on the Texas Amnesty Project. He spent 17 years for a crime he didn't commit, and he now works in conjunction with several lawyers in our firm to continue making strides in legislation. It's never going to be a perfect system, but it does improve by leaps and bounds under the radar. The trick is to arrange payment for these DNA tests - they're not cheap, and everyone knows any system like this is already underfunded. They're working on these kinds of things too.
The DEFENSE should have called for DNA testing. Prosecution has no need for such things if they believe they already have sufficient evidence for a conviction, which apparently they thought they did. Clearly the jury believed they did. Not everyone that gets convicted is convicted wrongly, and I won't make a judgment call in a case like this either. I'm just saying, there was due process. It's not always right, but it's not always wrong either. These things are never as simple as black and white. The good news is I can tell you the conviction process has improved considerably since '95, because of situations just like this. I've learned many things between working at a law firm and talking with my exonoree buddy. He'll tell you himself, most people who end up inside are guilty. Those few that aren't, it's fairly easy to get a bead on them.
My question would be, since he's been there since '95, why has no one else come forward with an offer of DNA testing? There are all sorts of organizations out there that could have dropped the money down for this. Has he himself been working towards his own defense and appeals, or has he been stewing in his own juices all this time? This says his team has been active, and it sounds like he's got a strong case, but do we truly know, or is this what we're being fed? I hate to say it, but I trust the press less than I trust the justice system. I'm glad to see the crusaders out there, working towards a better system, but keep in mind, the system is a work in progress, and it doesn't work on an agenda. You want true change to it, you vote for judges, you vote for congressmen, and you vote for city councils and mayors. Track these people. Hold them to their promises. Build their careers or drop 'em like a bad habit if they flounder. It seems like everyone's willing to cry out at the 11th hour, but nobody seems willing to do their part before that.