Innocence Project: Overhaul death penalty laws-- Wrongful Conviction

What scares me is that murder is a high profile crime and the prosucution is more likely to MAKE SURE they have the right person, giving that it has come to light a fairly large number of death row inmates are innocent of the crime that placed them there............what about lesser crimes. True with a false drug or theft charge you will not be killed, but your life is still ruined and you have lost years you can not ever get back. I have had both PAs and lawyers tell me the matter of innocent or guilty has NOTHING to do with it, its just a matter of if they can convict or not. This is a travisty of justice anyway you look at it, especially when you add on the sweeping powers given the police and without a doubt more to come...........all to protect us of course.

I personally could use a lot less protection and a lot more freedom

reply to post by lastrebel


I see it different. When negatives run a system they want the innocent to suffer, and reward their pscyo's, to create chaos and enable more controlling laws to be enacted. Also, it cost money to do thorough investigations, and it costs so much less to take a lesser criminal or someone they want to harm in some way, and plant some evidence.

Originally posted by WTFover
If you are sold on the notion that DNA evidence is incontrovertible and is sufficient to prove a person's innocence, is it not also sufficient to prove a person's guilt?

DNA alone shouldn't be enough to convict nor acquit someone.

If someone has been convicted of a crime, and they later find out that DNA on the victim or at the scene of the crime does not match that of the convicted person, then that doesn't prove that he is innocent.

He could have committed the crime, and the DNA might have come from an accomplice, or the DNA could have been from an innocent person who happened to be at the scene of the crime, just before or just after it occurred.

Similarly, DNA evidence on a victim or at the scene of the crime doesn't automatically incriminate the person which the DNA belongs to.


Even if we were to accept that DNA analysis is 100% accurate, that does not mean that the process between linking the DNA at the scene of the crime to the conclusion that the person actually committed the crime, is incontrovertible or infallible.

reply to post by lastrebel


I have 18.5 years gone from my life. Not one crime and now they have all my memories, they found nothing.

So why cannot the police be charged or the people who went to the police be charged for conspiracy to commit murder, as my life is absolutely ruined by uk and police.

What a joke gordan brown talking about human rights and seeing that person released when the uk gov and police are just as bad.

My life was effectively murdered by the school i went to at 17, and the people i went to school with. They started this mad vendetta against my life beyond words.

So now the truths have come out, how come they are not charged with conspiracy to commit murder?

Amazing how all the psychopaths in society do what they want.

I just wonder how many people in society where murdered by people like the ones i went to school with or my neighbours.

The number of innocent people wrongfully killed by police must be staggering i reckon.

At least my life has shown that police are deliberately attempting to murder anyone they want in uk society and they just make it up.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
DNA alone shouldn't be enough to convict nor acquit someone.

My point, exactly. Too many people assume that investigators and prosecutors are limited to or only seek one piece of evidence, to convict a person of a crime. Don't get me wrong, I have worked with LEO who had that mindset, as well. But, it just doesn't work that way. At least if one really cares about justice.

Originally posted by WTFover
My point, exactly. Too many people assume that investigators and prosecutors are limited to or only seek one piece of evidence, to convict a person of a crime. Don't get me wrong, I have worked with LEO who had that mindset, as well. But, it just doesn't work that way. At least if one really cares about justice.

Ideally, I think the best way to deal with new DNA ( or any other ) evidence that puts a conviction in doubt, would be to hold a re-trial based on all the other original evidence.

Obviously I realise that this would be impossible, as firstly, I believe that this would be considered unconstitutional in the US as it would go against the double Jeopardy provision that is outlined in the US Constitution, and secondly, in a particularly notorious case, it would be impossible to ensure that the jury would not be prejudiced due to their previous knowledge of the defendant and his ''crime'' after the original conviction.

Like many legal scenarios, I think this kind of situation is one that is just about impossible to come up with a fair and even way to arbitrate upon.


I still maintain that life imprisonment should always be preferred over capital punishment, because no matter how we try and justly arbitrate on new evidence that may shed doubt on the original conviction, one fact still remains: the original sentence will still, theoretically, be reversible !