TheAgitator.com
Innocence
Wednesday, December 12th, 2007Georgia man exonerated of rape after DNA testing.
Here’s hoping he now gets his life turned around. The guy has a shady past, so I’m sure there will be some who won’t be particularly bothered by his wrongful imprisonment for the rape. I obviously don’t share that sentiment, but even if that’s your inclination, his conviction for the rape represents yet another data point against the exclusive use of eyewitness testimony.
I have never met any remotely decent person who thinks it is acceptable to falsely imprison someone. However, many people don’t get upset when someone with a lengthy criminal record gets a very harsh punishment. I happen to be one of those people. If someone has a long record of assaulting people, for example, I have no problem with giving them life in prison or executing them if they slip up and maim someone the next time. Incorrigible violent offenders and thieves don’t deserve any mercy after the first few offenses.
From reading the article, apart from the rape/battery/robbery that White was exonerated from, his only other crimes were drug possession and a robbery. Because criminalizing drug possession is profoundly unjust and immoral, the only thing that White is really guilty of is a 1997 robbery. And I don’t mean to suggest that robbery is something that shouldn’t be taken seriously – but frankly, one robbery does not a scumbag make. Nor should the conviction of one robbery give anyone any comfort about a person being sent to prison for 40 years for a rape they didn’t commit.
“..yet another data point against the exclusive use of eyewitness testimony”
Are you suggesting there be some sort of rule stating that a defendant be found not-guilty as a matter of law when the case against him is based solely on eye-wtiness testimony? As ragingly pro-rights-of-the-accused as I am, I think that’s a troubling proposition.
I think some of the rules and reforms for confirming and testing eye-witness accounts discussed elsewhere on this site are the solution, along with educating the public, so that juries are more skeptical of identifications. A per se rule against eye-witness only evidence is too extreme.
Nick#3, yes, it’s def a personal quandry. It leave things open for false acusations, yet the only evidence in some cases.
Mike#1 is a boob. Someone did some bad things so when they finally do big time, get killed or raped in jail, it’s ok because they were a bad person even if they are innocent of the charge? You must be a police state apologist and I beg karma to kick you in the teeth for something you didn’t do. Nothing like “Omg, but this can’t be happening to ME” to enlighten you a little further. A few too many cops don’t fear the consequences of bending or outright breaking the law, at worst all they seem to get is some paid leave and loss of vacation time after it get reduced to some minor discretionary infraction. A criminal is a criminal, but not if they are wearing a uniform right?
“…but frankly, one robbery does not a scumbag make…”
Obviously, you’ve never been robbed. Since you’re completely ignorant on the subject, let me inform you: Robbers are complete scumbags, and deserve incredibly harsh punishment for the crime they commit.
Sydney – I’m sorry that somebody robbed you of your sensibilities.
Sydney:
For the record, I have been robbed (who hasn’t?). Frankly, I don’t think robbers deserve “incredibly harsh punishment” — I think they should be obligated to perform restitution to the victim. I don’t think there is any justification for a criminal justice system which has as its main function the deliberate infliction of suffering (like the deprivation of liberty, along with the attendant risks of violent physical and sexual assault that imprisonment brings). At the very least, a robber doesn’t deserve the same punishment as someone who engaged in rape and battery.
I don’t think robbers deserve the same punishment as a rapist, which is why I said “for the crime they commit.” But I strongly support punishment, which means prision time and possibly turning big rocks into little rocks while wearing a striped uniform.
I don’t think it’s worthwhile to debate whether the criminal justice system should involve punishment or not. Overwhelming majorities of Americans think it should, and that’s not going to change. That doesn’t mean that jails should be inhumane, or outside of the protections of due process. I don’t support jail as a de-facto place of rape, or assaults by guards. But criminals should be punished within the bounds of the law, and robbers especially.
Sydney:
Well, I don’t think that punishments, or anything for that matter, is moral or just merely because a majority (or super-majority) of people happen to approve of it. And insofar as a punishment is unjust, it’s worth ‘debating’ — or at least discussing why that is — regardless of what a super-majority of people think. It would seem that super-majorities of people also approve of, say, the criminalization of crack and heroin, but that shouldn’t stop us from pointing out that the criminalization of behavior, such as the use, possession, manufacture, and distribution of drugs, which doesn’t violate anybody else’s rights — is profoundly unjust. And when the law criminalizes and punishes behavior unjustly – I definitely DO NOT think that ‘criminals’ should be punished within the bounds of the law.