Innocence Project = Stupid Project

[Strix]

The Innocence Project isn't just some group of defense lawyers trying to get the guilty released for shits and giggles.  The vast vast majority of people who are released as a result of their work are actually innocent of their alleged crimes.  The process was screwed up by overzealous or incompetent police and prosecutors who played the prime role in locking up an innocent person.

Except the guy pled guilty to the murder. They just got him a better sentencing deal. I am sure that's a great comfort to the newest victim's family.

[Stonewall]

The Innocence Project isn't just some group of defense lawyers trying to get the guilty released for shits and giggles.  The vast vast majority of people who are released as a result of their work are actually innocent of their alleged crimes.  The process was screwed up by overzealous or incompetent police and prosecutors who played the prime role in locking up an innocent person.

Except the guy pled guilty to the murder. They just got him a better sentencing deal. I am sure that's a great comfort to the newest victim's family.

You should read more carefully.  He entered a plea to the crime he was charged with 10 years ago after being awarded a new trial.  The deal was likely offered because a prosecutor knew they would be unlikely to get another conviction, the defendant didn't want to have to wait in jail for his new trial and the easiest way for everyone involved was for him to plea to time served.  Everyone got something from the deal.  Prosecutor got a conviction, defendant was released.  Justice was served, albeit belatedly.  People enter best interests pleas all the time.  Many of them are innocent and don't trust a system that is stacked against them.  That mistrust is is a valid concern in many cases, as evidenced by the thousands of people who have been released over the past few years because they were actually innocent of the crimes they were convicted of.

[DGuller]

It's amazing how jobs can change certain parts of people's political mindset.  Stonewall is a bleeding heart liberal when it comes to the question of whether innocent people should be kept in jail, Strix is a bleeding heart liberal when it comes to a question of whether parole officers in a union can ever be paid too much.

[Strix]

You should read more carefully.  He entered a plea to the crime he was charged with 10 years ago after being awarded a new trial.  The deal was likely offered because a prosecutor knew they would be unlikely to get another conviction, the defendant didn't want to have to wait in jail for his new trial and the easiest way for everyone involved was for him to plea to time served.  Everyone got something from the deal.  Prosecutor got a conviction, defendant was released.  Justice was served, albeit belatedly.  People enter best interests pleas all the time.  Many of them are innocent and don't trust a system that is stacked against them.  That mistrust is is a valid concern in many cases, as evidenced by the thousands of people who have been released over the past few years because they were actually innocent of the crimes they were convicted of.

You should have read more carefully in the first place and you would have realized he took a plea and that this wasn't the case of an innocent man being set free.

He took the plea because he killed the victim and realized he could get out early. After 8-9 years in prison, a few more months doesn't matter either way. Well, it does matter because it's the difference of having to check the convicted felon and writing down that it was for murder on all your job/housing applications.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't see the problem here.
Guy proven to have not commited a crime- is released. Utterly fair.
That he then went onto commit another crime is neither here nor there.

Agreed.  Completely different than the dude Norman Mailer got released.

[The Minsky Moment]

You should have read more carefully in the first place and you would have realized he took a plea and that this wasn't the case of an innocent man being set free.

It's not an issue of reading comp; it's a question of basic understanding.  The fact that someone pleads guilty means that from the standpoint of the law, he is not innocent.  It does not mean that in actual fact he is not innocent.  There are many reasons innocent people can and do plead guilty to crimes.

[stjaba]

I don't see the problem here.
Guy proven to have not commited a crime- is released. Utterly fair.
That he then went onto commit another crime is neither here nor there.

Agreed.  Completely different than the dude Norman Mailer got released.

In my criminal law casebook, the chapter on theories of punishment  talks about that guy. The selection paints the picture that the guy was so hardened by his time in prison that it was not his fault whatsoever that he killed again once he made to the outside. I decided to do a little investigation after reading that. Then, I found out the dude killed a waiter for telling him that the restaurant's bathroom was for staff only. After finding that out, I had a realization: The editors of the casebook are probably bleeding hearts.

[grumbler]

He did plead guilty to first degree murder in 1999, but then recanted and said he was led to the confession by his lawyer.  After the Project Innocence team discovered other flaws in his case (like a prosecution mis-statement of the facts in the sentencing, which the defense lawyer never challenged), the case was ordered re-tried on the grounds of ineffective counsel.  The prosecutor claimed they no longer had the witnesses or evidence to convict again, so reached a plea deal in which Parrish pled guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to time served.

No evidence of "innocence" was ever entered.  The re-trial was ordered on technical grounds.

[The Minsky Moment]

Read my outline. It's better than the casebook.

It's longer.

[Strix]

It's not an issue of reading comp; it's a question of basic understanding.  The fact that someone pleads guilty means that from the standpoint of the law, he is not innocent.  It does not mean that in actual fact he is not innocent.  There are many reasons innocent people can and do plead guilty to crimes.

What a nice statement. Totally meaningless for the question at hand but nice. We are talking about murder and not criminal possession of drugs.

It's called the Innocence Project and not the Better Plea Deal Project. If the guy were innocent than he should be exonerated of all charges. A felony conviction for murder carries a lot of stigmas and legal ramifications. If the Project thought he was innocent than why do a plea deal?

I think this is a question of morals and integrity. Just as Stonewall made his assumption about the plea deal. I am making an assumption that the Project needed a WIN to justify it's continuation. Lawyers, as lawyers do, ignored the ethics of the situation and got a convicted murderer a better plea deal.

I'd say I hope they can live with the newest murder that they are directly to blame but we are talking about lawyers.

[grumbler]

It's not an issue of reading comp; it's a question of basic understanding.  The fact that someone pleads guilty means that from the standpoint of the law, he is not innocent.  It does not mean that in actual fact he is not innocent.  There are many reasons innocent people can and do plead guilty to crimes.

What a nice statement. Totally meaningless for the question at hand but nice. We are talking about murder and not criminal possession of drugs.

It's called the Innocence Project and not the Better Plea Deal Project. If the guy were innocent than he should be exonerated of all charges. A felony conviction for murder carries a lot of stigmas and legal ramifications. If the Project thought he was innocent than why do a plea deal?

I think this is a question of morals and integrity. Just as Stonewall made his assumption about the plea deal. I am making an assumption that the Project needed a WIN to justify it's continuation. Lawyers, as lawyers do, ignored the ethics of the situation and got a convicted murderer a better plea deal.

I'd say I hope they can live with the newest murder that they are directly to blame but we are talking about lawyers.

  It always amuses me to see silly arguments made more absurd by the making of unwarranted assumptions, followed by baseless personal slurs, and culminating in demonization via logical flaw.

Never change, Strix.  This kinda shit is laugh-out-loud funny, and we need that in our daily lives. 

[The Minsky Moment]

What a nice statement. Totally meaningless for the question at hand but nice. We are talking about murder and not criminal possession of drugs.

It's called the Innocence Project and not the Better Plea Deal Project. If the guy were innocent than he should be exonerated of all charges. A felony conviction for murder carries a lot of stigmas and legal ramifications. If the Project thought he was innocent than why do a plea deal?

I think this is a question of morals and integrity. Just as Stonewall made his assumption about the plea deal. I am making an assumption that the Project needed a WIN to justify it's continuation. Lawyers, as lawyers do, ignored the ethics of the situation and got a convicted murderer a better plea deal.

I'd say I hope they can live with the newest murder that they are directly to blame but we are talking about lawyers.

This post is like an object lesson in faulty logic and false assumptions.

1) "What a nice statement. Totally meaningless for the question at hand but nice. We are talking about murder and not criminal possession of drugs." - who said anything about possession of drugs?  How is the fact that people plea guilty to crimes they do not commit not have relevance to a story about someone pleading guilty to a crime (last I checked murder was crime in most states)?

If it helps the understanding, perhaps I can rephrase: The fact that someone pleads guilty TO MURDER means that from the standpoint of the law, he is not innocent.  It does not mean that in actual fact he is not innocent.  There are many reasons innocent people can and do plead guilty to MURDER.  For example, if the suspect is otherwise not an attractive person and is confronted by a eyewitness, who although may be testifying falsely -- the suspect knows is likely to be believed by a jury.

2) "It's called the Innocence Project and not the Better Plea Deal Project."  Yes, and presumably that is why the Project presented evidence of actual innocence.

3) "If the guy were innocent than he should be exonerated of all charges."  Yes he should be.  But until the innocence project is given the power to pardon I don't think we can blame them for that.  As you are probably aware of as a NY probation officer, reversing a guilty verdict is very difficult, even when armed with evidence of actual innocence.

4) "A felony conviction for murder carries a lot of stigmas and legal ramifications. If the Project thought he was innocent than why do a plea deal? "  Perhaps because lawyers have a duty to represent the interests of their clients?

5) "I am making an assumption that the Project needed a WIN to justify it's continuation."  You are indeed making that assumption. 

6) " Lawyers, as lawyers do, ignored the ethics of the situation and got a convicted murderer a better plea deal. "  Lawyers, as lawyer do, did their job.  Sometimes ill-informed people view lawyers doing their job as a breach of ethics, though I would hope a law enforcement officer would know better.

7) "I'd say I hope they can live with the newest murder that they are directly to blame but we are talking about lawyers." We will have to wait for a murder they are directly to blame for to find out what your hopes truly are.  I suspect based on your post that your hopes are not really as you claim, but until this hypothetical situation arises, the answer will remain a mystery.

[PDH]

Don't be mean to strix, he is a moron.

[derspiess]

Seems like most of the guys who get wrongly convicted of murder aren't exactly saints themselves, and we're better off for them being locked up.

[garbon]

Seems like most of the guys who get wrongly convicted of murder aren't exactly saints themselves, and we're better off for them being locked up.

That might be the case, but that isn't really how our legal system is supposed to work.