30 years in prison while innocent.

[Vizardlorde]

Holy shit... How many people have they been imprisoning without a shred of evidence? Werent we innocent til proven guilty according to the constitution?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...742_story.html

Sorry I just didn't have the words to express myself right after posting this, both men were sentenced to death for a crime they didn't commit. In later trials, the death sentence was revoked and then reinstated for only one of the two brothers who would have been executed already if executions in the state hadn't been halted by legal issues since 2006.

[Yunru]

He was probaly kicked into prison due to a race color.
However the dna tests we got today can save lifes, like they did to that person. They didnt have that good tehnology 30 years ago.

[Bakis]

Capital punishment is good.. .

[Vizardlorde]

But there was literally nothing linking them to the crime scene other than being there, is the need for someone to blame greater than people's right to freedom and a fair trial?

[Deleted]

Not only an argument that the US justice system is institutionally racist but also against the death penalty. Oh an they had the IQ of children as well lovely.

[Themius]

It amazes me when people don't want due process before we kill people.

- - - Updated - - -

But there was literally nothing linking them to the crime scene other than being there, is the need for someone to blame greater than people's right to freedom and a fair trial?

Yes, prosecutors like to throw people in jail, it's good for their numbers.

[arandomuser]

Holy shit... How many people have they been imprisoning without a shred of evidence? Werent we innocent til proven guilty according to the constitution?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...742_story.html

Sad thing is that the GOP and justice scalia ran a campaign smearing this man and saying he was the reason we needed the death penalty, nice to know a certain group of people wanted an innocent man executed, INNOCENT MAN EXECUTED http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5756362.html

[chazus]

is the need for someone to blame greater than people's right to freedom and a fair trial?

Technically, logically, no.

Realistically? Yes.

People cry out for blood, and often rarely care whose, as long as they're convinced. And back then, WWB was a legitimate crime. Sadly, these guys aren't alone. I think there have been 10-20 other people, if not more, on death row alone who were proven innocent, and let out decades later, or even executed anyway.

Not counting the -thousands- of innocent people in normal jail. It's a largely broken system. Not the death penalty part, but the policing and judging part.

[Halyon]

There's a group dedicated to getting wrongfully incarcerated people on death row released, so...way more than there should be.

So yeah, it's...awful, to say the least...

[Savoir Faire]

Not counting the -thousands- of innocent people in normal jail. It's a largely broken system. Not the death penalty part, but the policing and judging part.

So what's the way to do it better?

[arandomuser]

There's a group dedicated to getting wrongfully incarcerated people on death row released, so...way more than there should be.

So yeah, it's...awful, to say the least...

And while they had the wrong guy in prison, the actual convict raped another girl, digusting that people on the right supported these crony prosecutors, i have to say it, if these men were not black they would not of gone to jail, they were black and near the scene, and thats all that god damned mattered to the prosecutor.

[SpcGuts]

The best part about the case is that they convicted the brothers based on the coerced confession where they said 4 people were involved. No charges were ever brought against the other two people.

[chazus]

So what's the way to do it better?

Actually follow the constitution? Make officers and judges have to follow the same rules we do?

Punish officials who wrongly decide the fate of others with little to no, or even conflicting evidence?

The same thing we should do for cops who run over people while texting and go unpunished. The same thing we should do to judges who get money for judgements by other parties.

Actually have some accountability so the people with authority don't abuse on a regular and consistent and predictable basis.

Of course, I'm aware this won't happen, probably ever.

[Vizardlorde]

So what's the way to do it better?

IDK keep looking for evidence if there is none would be a nice start. Not blaming the first person you notice at the crime with out any proof? Keeping maintaining the community's peace of mind by getting a conviction on a random person should not take priority over catching the real criminal who might keep committing crimes like the one in this case. There shouldnt be a score for closing cases quickly.

[Novx]

But there was literally nothing linking them to the crime scene other than being there, is the need for someone to blame greater than people's right to freedom and a fair trial?

Without trying to defend the actions of anyone involved in the case: You understand that the "system" has changed a lot in the last 30 years, right? Back then they relied much more on witness testimony than they do today simply because of technological advances being much less than what they are in modern times. I'm not saying there wouldn't have been any evidence at the crime scene but DNA testing isn't what it is today. It's great that we have organizations that do all they can such as the innocence project (www.innocenceproject.org) but try not to forget that a lot can change in 30+ years.

e:

Punish officials who wrongly decide the fate of others with little to no, or even conflicting evidence?

I'm sorry but I just can't agree with this at all. A prosecutors job is to get a conviction. They aren't there to do the jobs of a crime scene investigator or a lab tech, they are lawyers. Their job is to convict, not investigate, it shouldn't be held against them if they are given witnesses that say X did Y and that ended up not being true.

[Themius]

Without trying to defend the actions of anyone involved in the case: You understand that the "system" has changed a lot in the last 30 years, right? Back then they relied much more on witness testimony than they do today simply because of technological advances being much less than what they are in modern times. I'm not saying there wouldn't have been any evidence at the crime scene but DNA testing isn't what it is today. It's great that we have organizations that do all they can such as the innocence project (www.innocenceproject.org) but try not to forget that a lot can change in 30+ years.

e:



I'm sorry but I just can't agree with this at all. A prosecutors job is to get a conviction. They aren't there to do the jobs of a crime scene investigator or a lab tech, they are lawyers. Their job is to convict, not investigate, it shouldn't be held against them if they are given witnesses that say X did Y and that ended up not being true.

Sometimes a prosecutors job is to get a conviction, regardless of how "guilty" he believes the defendant to be.

[Deletedaccount1]

Punish officials who wrongly decide the fate of others with little to no, or even conflicting evidence?

This is a little too extreme, honestly the fair solution to these types of crimes is a less punishing, rehabilitative prison environment.

Reduce sentence times but actually give prisoners the tools they need to put their lives back together.

I think the Japanese do it really well and its part of the reason why Japan is so safe. Their system is basically ultra strict, no talking, you work and study and eat their nutrition based diet. You exercise and mediate, if you misbehave you go straight into solitary. They managed to introduce order into the system without any violence. Its really amazing to be honest.

Thinking that will happen in the US is just wishful thinking though. America = $$$

[Velaniz]

They'd better be handsomely compensated. They had most of their lives stolen from them. I'd probably be out for blood.

OP should've added that they weren't just put in prison. They were put on death row, living their days believing they were going to be killed.

[Novx]

Sometimes a prosecutors job is to get a conviction, regardless of how "guilty" he believes the defendant to be.

Not sometimes, always.

[The One Percent]

I'm sorry but I just can't agree with this at all. A prosecutors job is to get a conviction. They aren't there to do the jobs of a crime scene investigator or a lab tech, they are lawyers. Their job is to convict, not investigate, it shouldn't be held against them if they are given witnesses that say X did Y and that ended up not being true.

How about when even the evidence they're given doesn't support guilt, but they manipulate the system to get a conviction anyway so they have a nice track record?