Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Our criminal justice system is slow and frustrating but the reason for that is simple: protection of the innocent is more important than punishment of the guilty.
When the system doesn't work and an innocent person is incarcerated, this is an injustice of the very worst kind.
Contrary to what most people assume, eyewitness testimony is about the least reliable evidence that can be produced, and "circumstantial" evidence is about the most reliable. (For example, if you wake up in the morning and see the ground covered with snow, but you never saw it snowing, the snow cover is circumstantial evidence that it snowed overnight.)
In my opinion, every case that involves eyewitness testimony should include expert testimony and a jury instruction on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony.
Our criminal justice system is slow and frustrating but the reason for that is simple: protection of the innocent is more important than punishment of the guilty.
When the system doesn't work and an innocent person is incarcerated, this is an injustice of the very worst kind.
Equally frustrating is that a man can be charged with robbery and can get 19 years in prison, but someone can get behind the wheel of a car with a BAC of two or three times the legal limit, kill someone, and get off with a year and probation.
I've heard it said many times that everyone has a twin somewhere on the planet. I guess all we can do is hope our doubles live far enough away that this won't happen to us. I agree about convictions based only on eye witness testimony. It's not only unreliable, but can also be a case of intentional misidentification by the witness. It shouldn't be the only factor in a conviction.
Who gets imprisoned for 17 years for robbery? Our criminal justice system needs work. This man should be awarded tax-free millions, and never have to pay another dime in taxes.
Who gets imprisoned for 17 years for robbery? Our criminal justice system needs work. This man should be awarded tax-free millions, and never have to pay another dime in taxes.
I have no comment to make on the Kansas incident, but in the U.K. in 1964, 7 men were jailed for 30 years, and 4 others for 20-25 years, for the 1963 "Great Train Robbery."
In 2006, 4 people got life terms, 1 got 20 years, and 1 got 25 for the robbery of a Securitas depot in Tonbridge, Kent.
Whether the sentences were right or wrong, you'll have to ask the Crown Prosecution Service.
Just because they found him a look-alike 17 years later does not mean he didn't really commit the crime. There is no reason to believe they looked like identical twins 17 years ago. There is no reason to believe that the "twin" committed the crime instead of the prisoner.
They don't look much alike now, except for the same hair style and the same beard.
Without being there at the trial its impossible to know for sure what happened. This is what I would bet:
1. Indigent defendant is represented by a public defender who is trying to manage 100 or more cases and cannot devote much time to this case.
2. The jury that is picked in this case is largely white.
3. The victim testifies that he/she is absolutely certain the defendant is the perpetrator of the crime.
4. The jury fails to see the issues in such a case with eyewitness identification. They take "all or nothing" attitude towards a case like this.
5. The jury decides to believe the victim and convicts the defendant.
I put a lot of the blame in a case like this on the people who served on the jury. Juries are instructed by a judge that unless "evidence shows proof beyond a reasonable doubt, they must acquit the defendant". The problem is that is seldom what occurs. Many people who sit on juries assume that if someone is charged with a crime that they are very likely guilty of that crime.
In a case like this, I would have hoped for jurors who would have decided that an eyewitness identification like this one is insufficient to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt without corroborating evidence.
I do find myself hoping that some of the jurors in this case who convicted this man lose some sleep over it. I think they deserve a few sleepless nights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
