Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
While there is much I agree with in your post, including the logical position that DNA fingerprinting should be used to the fullest possible extent on cases based primarily upon victim identifications, I cannot agree with the above. Saying trials were flawed before DNA evidence became admissible is like saying medicine was flawed before penicillin.
I really am at a loss to understand what you propose to do to make eyewitness identifications more fair to the defendant, other than taking the witness credibility determination away from a jury and giving it to a panel of critical race theorists. Yes, most criminal defense attorneys suck, and most juries are stupid and credulous. But I really don't see how that makes the judge or DA or system morally responsible for the conviction of men who were positively identified by a crime victim who apparently convinced a Batson-qualified jury and whose conviction, by apparently being upheld on appeal, was judicially determined to be nothing more than a credibility determination in favor of the victim who, in turn, honestly believes s/he is testifying truthfully. Got any better ideas about how to avoid that perfect storm?
|
Any idea I could come up with wouldn't involve me digging a hole in the sand in which to hide my head.
And let me ask you this: If (and this is a HUGE "if") the system was skewed in such a way that white people were the ones who typically got screwed, don't you think we'd have our best and brightest working on the problem day and night in the name of justice? The fact that you throw up your hands and say, "This is the best we can do" means something (well, at least to me).
So, "what are my solutions?" This is another great response. The system is flawed, but since it is flawed in such a way that the powerless get fucked, it's on you, Thurgreed, to come up with the solution.
The first thing I would do would be to remove the death penalty until it can be proven that it could be applied fairly. If you can't come up with that proof, tough shit.
The second thing I would do is
acknowledge that trials are flawed. This does not call into question our whole judicial system, but it would allow a relatively quick review of cases where new evidence (by way of technology or what have you) can be introduced.
Next, I would hand out huge penalties to police who coerce witnesses and DAs who intentionally overlook or bury evidence detrimental to their case. Where is the incentive right now
not to do these things?
Finally, if you want to be a defense attorney at all, a few months out of each year should be spent as a public defender. Mandatory.
I'm sure there are other ways of improving things and I'm not even sure these few hastily thrown together ideas even work. But at least I'm willing to put some thought into it. Are you?
Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
It really sucks when someone gets convicted for a crime they didn't commit. But it also really sucks when your wife or sister or brother is raped and the DA, flying in the face of 800 years of Western jurisprudence,* tells you that her testimony isn't enough to go on because the victim is presumptively incapable of successfully IDing the perp because, OBTW, she's a latent racist.
|
Gee whiz. I bet this happens all the time. Those poor racists, constantly having their testimony removed because it is so clearly racist. If only they could control themselves on the stand, maybe they would get their day in court. But until that day comes, I guess I'll just be satisfied with the oh-so-few instances when a black guy was the perp and the cop brings the closest black guy to the scene and he automatically is identified and becomes the number one suspect. Sounds good. I'll have that.
Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I'll give you a time machine to 1982, or for that matter any point before DNA became admissible evidence in 1989 (and again I note that when it did, it did so over the objections of defense attorneys, not because of them). Can you seriously say (in 1982) that the system is flawed because it relies heavily on eyewitness identification? I'm asking seriously, because I agree with you that factually wrong trial results suck, but I am honestly incapable of imagining how it could have been done any better under the circumstances, other than grossly differential treatment of cases based on the race of the complaining victim.
|
I don't understand the point of this exercise. Do you want me to retroactively go back and change the rules instead of allowing DNA evidence to clear people's names
now, who were locked up because the system was flawed then?
Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I'm all for taking a deeper look at the problems the system has, especially by improving the quality of criminal representation.
|
Really? Because I have yet to hear it. In fact, this is the first solution you've even come close to touching upon and it's been limited to seven words.
Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Maybe I'm just seeing this from a very blue part of a very blue state, but I'm not seeing a lot of shaky criminal prosecutions where the DA persists in spite of evidence of factual innocence, and you're grossly overstating your case to say they do.
|
I have no idea the extent to which this happens. But it certainly does happen. I certainly have no idea the extent to which it happens and isn't discovered. But then, neither do you.
And every time I hear of someone who thinks they got screwed in court (or anywhere else) because of their race, they are playing the race card or caught up with conspiracy theories or oversensitive (unless you are white and can't get a space at Harvard) and immediately discredited by the system that has no interest in giving it any attention.
Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
It's fun to think that DAs try to convict the innocent for sport...
|
Yeah. Great fun. It sounds like it's fun to be smug too.
Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
...but the reality I see is that they dismiss cases when they themselves start to think the D is the wrong guy because, even if they took sick pleasure in pursuing cases where they believed the D was innocent, it's hugely fucking embarrassing to these guys to lose to a schmucky PD at trial -- it's worse than taking the heat for dismissing the case.
|
I bet you'd appreciate it if I just swallowed this one whole, hunh? But again, the nature of the job is to win. And there are all sorts of examples of how a DA can (i) be overzealous or (ii) in league with cops they know are full of shit or (iii) unconcerned with evidence they possess that they're pretty sure won't be discovered until after they've moved on to their next job (and when, coincidentally, it becomes that much more difficult to re-open a trial or even have anyone listen). I'm sorry if I don't just take your word for it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
When they're concerned about the effect of strong exculpatory evidence on their win percentage, it's simpler to dismiss the case and not count it toward their batting average.
|
When they're concerned about weak exculpatory evidence that they bury or pretend to have overlooked because they're scared of a jury who wants to jump on anything that raises reasonable doubt, it's easier to sit on it. When they have strong exculpatory evidence that only they and the cops possess and they're up against an overworked, underpaid public defender who probably won't have time to uncover it, I'm sure it ain't so hard to sit on it then, either.
Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
*I suppose we could adopt the sharia law and require four adult male witnesses, but I think the experience of the Western world is that presumptively disbelieving a rape victim creates some social ills, like, um, more rape. Lucky us that DNA fingerprinting is uniquely helpful in solving cases that tend to involve leaving your genetic material at the crime scene.
|
What a bullshit footnote.
TM
