Innocent People Suffering at the Hands of the Judicial System, & It Could Happen to You

[ChelseaCenior]

The majority of people who are exonerated (determined to not be guilty of a crime that they have been serving time in prison for)are let out without apology, or compensation. When they look for a job, home/car/anything loan, they must provide the information that they have been convicted of a crime even though they have been proven by law not guilty. I propose that once exonerated, the records of exonerated person must be expunged (have their record cleared of the conviction)for all record of subject conviction

[annabanana]

1. This truely seems like the very LEAST that should be done for them.

Don't they have recouse for false imprisonment?

[ChelseaCenior]

2. Not so much.

Any reparation they may be entitled to, is often withheld, people fight for years, sometimes decades to get the money they are entitled to, some never get it.

[Hubert Flottz]

3. What's important is the prosecutors who put most of these

folks behind bars go on to become "honorable" judges and politicians, because they were able to chalk up so many convictions. The justice system in America has become a farcical, political based, money driven, three ring, circus.

For instance, take the case of Bush vs Gore and next probably Coleman vs Frankin...Bush vs Gore was sent to the highest court in the land and the result was a decision to appoint a would-be criminal to the highest office in the land, based upon unprecedented, partisan reasoning, instead of unbiased adherence to the letter of the law, which provided for the votes of the taxpaying voters, to be counted. I blame the five politically motivated people who's flawed decision placed an idiot in the White House, for every calamity that has followed since. For example, Bush couldn't have tortured anyone or committed a host of other war crimes, had Al Gore been president.

If Coleman vs Frankin goes all the way to the SCOTUS, I predict that another Al will be cheated and so will Frankin's state and country.

[sameoldsameold]

4. and that's the GOOD news!

Those maintaining their innocence will not be paroled until they "take resonsibility" for the crime for which they were convicted. The parole board will not even entertain the notion that a jury verdict might be wrong, and if you don't convince them of your genuine remorse, you'll be serving every last year of your sentence.

Everyone moans about money buying not guilty verdicts: What they're actually bitching about is the few times the defense is on equal footing resource-wise with the state. The prosecution has the thoroughly undeserved image of being seekers of the truth, when in reality they are just looking to win. They could care less if new evidence exonerates someone they convicted - if the truth reduces their victory count, they'll scream about the sanctity of jury verdicts and the need for closure. The only reason DNA has been allowed to free some unjustly convicted individuals is because it has often led to someone else being thrown in jail. Still, there's always that insane Scalia "Actual Innocence" bullshit when the state really wants to avoid embarrassing reversals.

The next time you hear someone whining about the unfairness of slick lawyers getting guilty clients off, be sure to remind them that there are a hell of a lot more innocent clients being thrown in jail because of witless legal aide lawyers and the built-in advantages routinely given to the state. I'll just mention one for now: When summation time rolls around, the state gets to go first, then the defense, followed by the state being allowed to make a counter-argument re: the defense summation.

[sameoldsameold]

5. and that's the GOOD news!

Those maintaining their innocence will not be paroled until they "take resonsibility" for the crime for which they were convicted. The parole board will not even entertain the notion that a jury verdict might be wrong, and if you don't convince them of your genuine remorse, you'll be serving every last year of your sentence.

Everyone moans about money buying not guilty verdicts: What they're actually bitching about is the few times the defense is on equal footing resource-wise with the state. The prosecution has the thoroughly undeserved image of being seekers of the truth, when in reality they are just looking to win. They could care less if new evidence exonerates someone they convicted - if the truth reduces their victory count, they'll scream about the sanctity of jury verdicts and the need for closure. The only reason DNA has been allowed to free some unjustly convicted individuals is because it has often led to someone else being thrown in jail. Still, there's always that insane Scalia "Actual Innocence" bullshit when the state really wants to avoid embarrassing reversals.

The next time you hear someone whining about the unfairness of slick lawyers getting guilty clients off, be sure to remind them that there are a hell of a lot more innocent clients being thrown in jail because of witless legal aide lawyers and the built-in advantages routinely given to the state. I'll just mention one for now: When summation time rolls around, the state gets to go first, then the defense, followed by the state being allowed to make a counter-argument re: the defense summation.