Innocence Project = Stupid Project

[Fate]

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.

I agree. There is no way at all that this sort of system could be abused. Sometimes it's better that we ignore the murderer who is still on the streets and take what we can get. 

[grumbler]

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.

Corrected to point out that, while true, your point isn't very practical.  While saints are a minority of those accused of any crime, locking up people for being accused of a crime will soon see too few people outside the bars to guard those inside.

[DontSayBanana]

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.

Strix, you have heard of the phrase "fruit of the poison tree," correct?  The success of our legal system depends as much on the police and prosecutorial staff abiding by the rights of our citizens, especially to due process, as much as it depends on just convictions of the guilty.  Another thing is that if evidence is fabricated, you can be as sure as you want that he is guilty as hell of the crime for which he is accused, but that false evidence means you can never pass the threshold of reasonable doubt.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

The Innocence Project doesn't prove that someone didn't commit a crime; they just demonstrate enough flaw in the original conviction to get it set aside.  This very often means you're releasing someone who is actually guilty of the crime and who was convicted in spite of technicalities that the TEP later dug up.  Look into the case of Roger Coleman sometime; he was big news here in Virginia because people all over the country had all kinds of evidence showing that he was innocent and his original conviction was improper.  He was executed in the early 1990s and many people decried the Commonwealth for killing an innocent man.  DNA testing conducted a few years ago proved he conclusively was guilty.

[grumbler]

Look into the case of Roger Coleman sometime; he was big news here in Virginia because people all over the country had all kinds of evidence showing that he was innocent and his original conviction was improper.  He was executed in the early 1990s and many people decried the Commonwealth for killing an innocent man.  DNA testing conducted a few years ago proved he conclusively was guilty.

Actually, absent the brief furor over the Time magazine article, Coleman's case was not particularly controversial.  It was really just one organization, whose director had become friends with Coleman during the appeals process, that was pushing for the reprocessing of the DNA.  As for "people all over the country had all kinds of evidence showing that he was innocent," I am unaware of any such evidence.  Do you have a cite for this?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Look into the case of Roger Coleman sometime; he was big news here in Virginia because people all over the country had all kinds of evidence showing that he was innocent and his original conviction was improper.  He was executed in the early 1990s and many people decried the Commonwealth for killing an innocent man.  DNA testing conducted a few years ago proved he conclusively was guilty.

Actually, absent the brief furor over the Time magazine article, Coleman's case was not particularly controversial.  It was really just one organization, whose director had become friends with Coleman during the appeals process, that was pushing for the reprocessing of the DNA.  As for "people all over the country had all kinds of evidence showing that he was innocent," I am unaware of any such evidence.  Do you have a cite for this?

Link.  That was an after the fact book and it's been a long time since I've read it; entirely possible I misstated the degree of evidence presented inside the book.  I just remember that when Coleman was executed my opinion was "he did it, no big deal", but I remember doubting that somewhat after reading the details in the book, and then feeling redemption when Warner had the DNA testing done.

[Neil]

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.

Corrected to point out that, while true, your point isn't very practical.  While saints are a minority of those accused of any crime, locking up people for being accused of a crime will soon see too few people outside the bars to guard those inside.

Which is why expedited executions are essential.

[grumbler]

Link.  That was an after the fact book and it's been a long time since I've read it; entirely possible I misstated the degree of evidence presented inside the book.  I just remember that when Coleman was executed my opinion was "he did it, no big deal", but I remember doubting that somewhat after reading the details in the book, and then feeling redemption when Warner had the DNA testing done.

I vaguely remember the book, but remember more strongly that the evidence against Coleman (a previous sexual offender) seemed pretty tight even at the time of the trial.  There was a fair amount of physical evidence, as I recall: a fingerprint of his in blood at the scene, specks of her blood on his clothes, etc.

A good friend of mine was from Grundy so I recall that i knew a fair amount about the case and didn't see any problems.  The fuss seemed to be from a guy who simply couldn't believe that his friend could be a murderer, and who had access to the press.

I hadn't heard of the book, though.  Something tells me that it will not see print again! 

[Neil]

A good friend of mine was from Grundy so I recall that i knew a fair amount about the case and didn't see any problems.  The fuss seemed to be from a guy who simply couldn't believe that his friend could be a murderer, and who had access to the press.

This is a terrible ad hom, even for you.

[grumbler]

A good friend of mine was from Grundy so I recall that i knew a fair amount about the case and didn't see any problems.  The fuss seemed to be from a guy who simply couldn't believe that his friend could be a murderer, and who had access to the press.

This is a terrible ad hom, even for you.

No, it isn't an ad at all, and it obviously isn't an ad for me. 

[Neil]

A good friend of mine was from Grundy so I recall that i knew a fair amount about the case and didn't see any problems.  The fuss seemed to be from a guy who simply couldn't believe that his friend could be a murderer, and who had access to the press.

This is a terrible ad hom, even for you.

No, it isn't an ad at all, and it obviously isn't an ad for me. 

Accusing someone of being a good friend of a person infamous for his low character and odious personal habits is going too far.

[derspiess]

Corrected to point out that, while true, your point isn't very practical.  While saints are a minority of those accused of any crime, locking up people for being accused of a crime will soon see too few people outside the bars to guard those inside.

Jeez, I was just making an observation.  These guys are portrayed in the news and in made-for-TV movies as perfect human beings who got a bad rap, when in reality they tend to be criminals (if of other, hopefully lesser crimes).

[dps]

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.

Did they actually preseent such evidence?  The article in the opening post states that they assert that the evidence against him was shaky, but gives no details, and grumbler's post seems to indicate that they presented evidence of possible prosecutorial misconduct and of the defendent's original lawyer doing a poor job at the original trial--neither of which is evidence of actual innocence.

[grumbler]

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.

Did they actually preseent such evidence?  The article in the opening post states that they assert that the evidence against him was shaky, but gives no details, and grumbler's post seems to indicate that they presented evidence of possible prosecutorial misconduct and of the defendent's original lawyer doing a poor job at the original trial--neither of which is evidence of actual innocence.

The more I read about this, the more I am convinced that The Innocence Project didn't have anything to do with this case.  I think that this is about an innocence project.  The Innocence Project works to get modern DNA testing done in cases where the guilt of the convicted person is unclear, according to it site, and so wouldn't apply here.  Parrish isn't listed as one of their "clients" (though they list "exonerees" so maybe he wouldn't' be).

As an aside, TIP notes that 25% of those exonerated by DNA testing confessed to the crime with which they were charged.  As JR notes, confession does not seem to be a very reliable measure of guilt.

[OttoVonBismarck]

There's a lot of regional and law school affiliated "innocence projects" out there.