The Supreme Court, who gave itself way too much power very early on in our country’s history, has consistently limited the fourth amendment, which is actually part of the Constitution, while at the same time finding all kinds of other stupid rights that are not actually spelled out in the Constitution without giving citizens the chance to vote […]
Written by randomfool on February 23rd, 2007 with
no comments.
Read more articles on General Folly and Lawyers.
The Supreme Court, who gave itself way too much power very early on in our country’s history, has consistently limited the fourth amendment, which is actually part of the Constitution, while at the same time finding all kinds of other stupid rights that are not actually spelled out in the Constitution without giving citizens the chance to vote to amend the Constitution. As a result, the police and, more importantly, prosecutors have way too much power and our criminal justice system has made it entirely too easy to convict someone of a crime. Just watch any episode of 48 Hours. Most of the time, given the limited evidence that is profiled on the show, I feel like the suspect is guilty but I am almost always uncomfortable about the conviction. People are sent to jail for life or, even worse, executed on evidence that is very limited, circumstantial and emotional. For every O.J. Simpson, there seem to be many more people who cannot afford a dream team defense and are convicted of crimes they did not commit.
Even in the case of O.J., who I am certain committed the crime, was subject to an unreasonable search without a warrant. The bloody glove should have never been admissible because the police searched his house based solely on the half-inch spot on the side of the Bronco. The police definitely suspected O.J. immediately and were just looking for a reason to search his house. The blood spot on the side of the Bronco was not enough for me and most of the circumstantial evidence used in cases profiled on 48 Hours leaves me uncomfortable for the same reason.
Anyway, it has always bothered me even more that, when new evidence or new technology becomes available, district attorneys tend to fight efforts to re-open cases. Prosecutors are not incentivized to be interested in justice and are rather judged on wins and losses, a very dangerous and disturbing system. Prosecutors have enormous power to decide whom to bring charges against (usually based on the publicity that they can get) but they should be responsible, not just to pile up convictions, but for the quality of their convictions and to insure, after the fact, there is no chance that the person who was convicted may actually be innocent. (Quality control in a government enterprise…what a novel concept!)
DNA testing is a great example. If there is a technology that becomes available later and a credible test can be performed, we absolutely owe it to people who have been convicted to test the evidence and release them if it proves conclusively that they are innocent. The new District Attorney in Dallas, Craig Watkins, is doing just that. He is opening up his files to the Texas Innocence Project, a group of law students supervised by experienced defense lawyers, who are reviewing files to determine which cases are appropriate for a DNA test. There are lots of criminal convictions for sexual assault and other violent crimes where the only evidence is the victim’s testimony and where a sample has been preserved. As it turns out, unlike other cities in Texas, Dallas outsources its crime lab work and the private crime labs retain samples whereas in many other cities the evidence is destroyed after the trial. The project recently tested 36 people and 12 of them were set free as a result of the test! That means that one-third of the convictions were incorrect!!!!! And, as disturbing as that may be, the previous D.A. was fighting any attempt to re-open the files! They should send the previous D.A. to jail.
Our criminal justice system is necessarily flawed and will never be perfect. We have to accept that our system will sometimes not convict the guilty (i.e., O.J.) and sometimes will convict the innocent. However, as outrageous as the result in the O.J. case was, I can live with it. Prosecutors need to be reminded every so often that they are not invincible and an occasional public smack in the face is good for them. Besides, O.J. can’t hurt anyone now. Anyone who associates with him cannot claim later that they didn’t know he was dangerous. However, I cannot live with a system that generates an incorrect result thirty-three percent of the time especially when the result of that error involves the taking of someone’s freedom and, in some cases, their life. Maybe a thirty-three percent failure rate is the best we can do given our jury system, but if it is then we absolutely owe it to every convicted person to retain evidence samples indefinitely and to apply new technologies to those samples (at government expense) when they become available and when they might be able to prove innocence.
The Supreme Court has long since abdicated its responsibility to protect citizens from wrongful search and seizure in favor of protecting all kinds of other ridiculous rights never envisioned by the founding fathers (nor voted on by the citizens), but we should not let that stop us from using every available means to check, double-check and check again every conviction using every new technology that becomes available to insure that innocent people do not lose their freedom.
Written by randomfool on February 23rd, 2007 with
no comments.
Read more articles on General Folly and Lawyers.
There are still no comments on this article.
If you want to leave your comment on this article, simply fill out the next form:
You have to be identified to write a comment.