Ooops, Our Bad. Here's that 35 Years of Your Life Back?

There was probably a shit ton of resentment for this guy early on, but also those are a lot of years for him to reach a point of acceptance and he had to mature in prison. If I went in at age 19 and came out at 53, I would just take the money and enjoy whatever many years I had left. I'd buy a small condo on a caribbean island(or any place with an incredible view-after being locked in a box for so long) and spend the rest of my days there, bring wheelchair momma with me. It's just too much time, effort, and risk(that he'd end up in jail again) to focus on revenge.

 

Oh and I'm not a lawyer so correct me if I'm wrong but at some point I'd hit up a nice high speed car chase. I've always wanted to be in one of those and from my basic understanding you could get convicted and get credit for time served. (Yes, I know it's stupid and wouldn't actually happen but gotta have dreams right?)

 

Actually, if the man is going to sue anyone, he should sue the local law enforcement. There is, at minimum, one common factor in the release of an innocent person after a lengthy stay in jail and that is that the local police department or DA is only concerned about a conviction, and they take the easy road (pinning it on the first person they question, coercing witnesses and/or victims, etc.,) to get that conviction and appease the public/gain more money for their department/move further in their career. Houston's DNA labs are a flipping mess right now, and cases are having to be re-examined right and left because of this.

Google the name Joyce Gilchrist - an Oklahoma Police Department Forensic chemist, who participated in over 3000 criminal cases, over 20 which were death row convictions, and who was eventually charged with falsifying evidence in order to gain convictions. The case that broke this? A man who was wrongfully convicted of rape based on her evidence alone, even though he had an alibi. The worst thing about this case? He was convicted of rape, spent 15 years in prison, and then was suddenly released to go back to his now ex-wife and 15 year old twin boys, born shortly after (I believe) he was sentenced, and whom he has never seen.

When there is sloppy work done and a conviction received, it's usually at the hands of an over-zealous department wanting convictions at any cost. They need to be held responsible for ruining lives because of their own greed. F- the man, especially on these counts.

 

Did he just rape the kid? (Not saying "just" as in its not a bog deal) 35 years for raping someone? Isn't Murder 25 years to life? Am I missing something? Why was he in jail for 35 years for rape?

 

Really? I don't think anyone will dispute that convictions in high profile cases are a source of upward career momentum for the police officers and prosecutors involved, but what concerns me is the universal nature of your claim. Why is it impossible for the people involved to be doing their jobs within an acceptable standard of impartiality and competence, and despite this, an innocent individual still be convicted of a crime he or she didn't commit? I'm about as cynical as they come in regards to the legal system in my country (Canada), but even I have to admit that our officers and prosecutors are faced with difficult decisions on a regular basis.

I don't mean to come off as antagonistic, I'm genuinely curious.

 

Anecdotal support? Was it really that difficult to search the name? I wasn't describing hearsay or gossip. I was describing actual cases that I welcomed people to search. Be careful with your word usage if you simply can't be bothered to search something.

I will answer the question though.

Because to be convicted of something, there needs to be some kind of proof, whether it be witness or victim testimony, or actual evidence. Human error can only go so far, but when you have case after case of people being tried and convicted of crimes they did not commit then there becomes a measurable standard of how this happens. There is blame, because you have to have some kind of statement or evidence to convict. You have to have some kind of proof to make a group of anonymous citizens agree that the person is guilty. I know how jurors are selected and understand the process of trying to dumb down the pool, but you still have attorneys on both sides of it that tend to get a fairly unbiased pool of people to judge on what is given to them. You really can't blame the jury.

So who is next? The victim? In this case, the victim was taken in the middle of the night...and he was 7. In the case that I profiled, the victim wasn't even sure and didn't think it was the person convicted at first, but then was completely sure. Those things should be questioned. The fault here still doesn't lie on the victim, because they went through a traumatic experience and the possibility of coercion, by family, friends, police, attorneys and God knows who else is probably pretty strong. Not only that, but we can't live in the victim's head to find out what they are doing - they've been victimized, and are doing their best.

So then what? The accused? Both this case and the case I profiled had 2 people who had alibis during the time of the crimes in which they were accused of. It doesn't specifically state it in this case (which leads me to believe that there was not a prior record on this man, and I may be wrong, but it seems like it would have been included in a responsible report) of any prior convictions, but in the case I profiled, there were none. Did they just not "seem" trustworthy? Keep in mind, there are 9 anonymous people deciding guilt. To get this number of strangers to agree on guilt based on a feeling is pretty rare. Evidence is key here.

So where is the evidence when it comes to convicting an innocent person? Some of it is testimony, and some of it is pieced together by our law enforcement agencies. If it isn't testimony (in which this isn't always true but when you have the victim saying one thing, and the accused having an alibi, that's a hard conviction to make) then how does the evidence point to the wrong person? That's where you look at who is responsible for the evidence, and who can manipulate that evidence. In the case I pointed out, the key witness botched hundreds, maybe even thousands of cases, and it doesn't seem that they were high profile. In fact, think about it - would it be easier to get a conviction on botched evidence in a high profile or low profile case?

Every time you see this kind of case make the news, more often than not, it is a legitimately innocent person that got fucked by the man. Then, if you take the time and research that particular department or DA jurisdiction, you find other cases that seem suspicious. I gave 2 cities as an example; Oklahoma City and Houston. Keep in mind, Houston is the 4th largest city in the country, and by far the largest city in the state with the most annual executions in the country, and if this city has such a failure in their DNA labs and processing, then that is scary. That should clear up the cynicism, if nothing else. Here are some articles about Houston's DNA lab - the first surmises the same issues across the country, as well.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6768400.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 68400.html</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5103341/Houston-DNA-lab-near-breakdown.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199 ... kdown.html</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3207774.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3207774.html</a>

Joyce Gilchrist:

<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Gilchrist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Gilchrist</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/30/us/police-chemist-is-rebutted-after-man-s-execution.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/30/us/po ... ution.html</a>
(this is a case where the man had already been executed, and then the blood analysis was found to be incorrect. OOPS!)

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,109568,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 68,00.html</a>

Within these articles, you can find the case I profiled.

 

Focus: I'd kill a DA. I realize this is irrational, unjustifiable and probably falls somewhere on the spectrum of evil, but I can't imagine I could spend 35 years in prison for a crime I didn't commit without succumbing totally to violent nihilism.

 

Over the course of this thread, the judge, jury, prosecutor, defense attorney, populous of Central Florida, the American people, the Florida state legislature, or some combination of the aforementioned have all been blamed for this guy getting fucked over. And get fucked over he did. But please, can we all stop throwing around our "I've watched two season of Law and Order"-based knowledge of the American legal system?

We're debating what we basically know nothing about. No one here was present at the trial, no one here has read the trial transcript--I doubt many people have done much more than read a couple news articles about the case. So let's stop pretending like we know everything there is to know about the criminal procedure or the appellate process. The Village Idiot is right: we don't know what went on, and we have nowhere near enough evidence to start wildly throwing around accusations.

 

The one thing I probably wouldn't do is get back in touch with the family members that didn't visit me while I was in prison. To me, if you're not going to visit me in prison, it means that A. You believed that I was guilty, and B. That you don't care about me anymore. I honestly don't know what I'd do, but I'd probably end up taking the same route that Brooks took.