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?
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. 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'm all for taking a deeper look at the problems the system has, especially by improving the quality of criminal representation. 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. It's fun to think that DAs try to convict the innocent for sport, 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. 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.
*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.
|
