Wrongful Imprisonment

[rnatalli]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/usa_exoneration_dna_dc;_ylt=AoTliei1kheWnw_hL.zm74cDW7oF

So it seems this is yet another case of someone spending decades in prison for something they didn't do. Granted, there's only a handful of these cases, but what bothers me is how certain people get off. In this case, he was convicted on the testimony of two eye witnesses who have now signed affidavits. So they sign the affidavits and that's it? Sure he'll get some pitiful amount like $300,000 from the state for 27 years of his life. Doesn't seem right.

 

[Halon451]

Ouch. That's rough - 27 years is a veritable lifetime, and there's no getting that back, ever. I always wince a great deal when I hear stories like this, but I honestly don't know how any justice system can be refined to the point where it guarantees wrongfully convicted cases will not happen 100% of the time. I can only hope he gets compensated as much as possible and that he's still young enough and in good enough health to enjoy the rest of his years.

 

[rnatalli]

It bothers me that the two eye witnesses get off. Stick them in jail for some years and see how they like it. On the other hand, if we start doing that, no one will want to testify ever.

 

[stratman]

Clearly and utterly the system failed him, what happened to his defense attorney? We had a man released about 3 months ago here in Florida, DNA found him innocent, they're paying him 2 million for 25 years, that's not enough, more like 25 million should be about right.

 

[highfihoney]

Atleast $25 million,plus he should never have to pay any tax'es for the rest of his life & be given his choice of top paying job's within the prison system, should he so chose to work.

 

[aberkowitz]

It bothers me that the two eye witnesses get off. Stick them in jail for some years and see how they like it. On the other hand, if we start doing that, no one will want to testify ever.

I think eyewitnesses are subject to much more scrutiny today than they used to be. 30 years ago there was no DNA testing, any competent lawyer today would be screaming his head off for testing as well as for any photographic evidence. I believe (or maybe I'd just like to believe) if this case had come to trial today the result would have been different.

 

[stratman]

I think eyewitnesses are subject to much more scrutiny today than they used to be. 30 years ago there was no DNA testing, any competent lawyer today would be screaming his head off for testing as well as for any photographic evidence. I believe (or maybe I'd just like to believe) if this case had come to trial today the result would have been different.

This is an excellent point, technology has improved in the last 20+ years, I wonder how many are still behind bars that are innocent, they should at least push to have their cases reviewed.