Sometimes, liberal social consciousness gets a little ahead of itself.
QuoteDante Parrish always swore he was wrongly convicted for the 1999 murder of an East Baltimore man, and his pleas eventually gained the attention of the Innocence Project, which took up the case last year.
The evidence, according to lawyers for the small unit of state public defenders who represent people they believe have been wrongly convicted, was shaky from the start, relying on what they say was a false witness identification of Parrish and a gun that he never owned.
So when Parrish was awarded a new trial in January, Innocence Project attorneys considered it a victory, but one that lost its luster when the 35-year-old was arrested Thursday night and charged with the rape and fatal stabbing of Jason Madison Jr., 15.
Baltimore police say Parrish confessed to the killing Friday morning.
Michelle Nethercott, chief of the Innocence Project, said she stands by her agency's decision to fight for Parrish. In January, the state's attorney's office offered Parrish a plea deal that amounted to time served, and he was released, according to the city prosecutor's office.
"The case that we were involved in stands or falls on its own merit," Nethercott said. "It ... had all the hallmarks - you can't convict people on false evidence. Obviously, I'm horrified at what happened to this child. But I can't screen cases on future predictions on what might happen."
Parrish was led from police headquarters Friday morning to the Central Booking and Intake Center, where he was to be processed. But Mark Vernarelli, a spokesman for the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, said Parrish was instead admitted to Mercy Medical Center after complaining of headaches and a head injury.
The crime police are accusing Parrish of has gained national attention and shaken the East Baltimore neighborhood where Jason's body was found early Tuesday. Jason, who had been bound, gagged and stabbed in the head and throat with a box cutter, was discovered in the closet of his aunt's rowhouse in the 2400 block of Llewelyn Ave.
Parrish is charged with gagging the youth in his East Baltimore rowhouse (owned by the victim's aunt), raping him and then stabbing him in the head and throat before stuffing him in a closet.
Parrish is charged with first-degree murder, first-degree assault and first-degree sex offense, among other charges.
Innocence proves nothing. It's truer than people think.
So what's your argument? People who were wrongly convicted should stay in prison, because by the time they get out, they are demoralized enough, to actually turn into criminals?
If anything, it show the complete failure of both the justice system (assuming he was innocent, he was wrongly imprisoned) and the prison resocialization system (since not only he wasn't resocialized in prison, assuming he was innocent, the prison actually made a criminal out of an innocent man).
Let's lock you up for 10 years in prison, and see how's your moral compass after that.
A knee-jerk pro-gay response from Mart. DIDNT SEE THAT ONE COMING
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2009, 10:47:55 AM
So what's your argument? People who were wrongly convicted should stay in prison, because by the time they get out, they are demoralized enough, to actually turn into criminals?
If anything, it show the complete failure of both the justice system (assuming he was innocent, he was wrongly imprisoned) and the prison resocialization system (since not only he wasn't resocialized in prison, assuming he was innocent, the prison actually made a criminal out of an innocent man).
Let's lock you up for 10 years in prison, and see how's your moral compass after that.
Face it, Marty...if he hadn't raped an underaged teen boy, you wouldn't even have posted.
Martinus, President of the Innocence Taken By Force Because It's Hawt Project.
Oh fuck off, both of you. :lol:
Marty's excitement about prison rape fantasies aside, I don't think any prison based rehabilitation program has ever worked. In fact, prison probably does just turn people into more disgusting scum than they were going in.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 14, 2009, 11:52:30 AM
Marty's excitement about prison rape fantasies aside, I don't think any prison based rehabilitation program has ever worked. In fact, prison probably does just turn people into more disgusting scum than they were going in.
IMO, incarceration is more cruel than execution.
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.
Quote from: Maximus on November 14, 2009, 01:43:15 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 14, 2009, 11:52:30 AM
Marty's excitement about prison rape fantasies aside, I don't think any prison based rehabilitation program has ever worked. In fact, prison probably does just turn people into more disgusting scum than they were going in.
IMO, incarceration is more cruel than execution.
You've tried both? :huh:
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 14, 2009, 11:52:30 AM
Marty's excitement about prison rape fantasies aside, I don't think any prison based rehabilitation program has ever worked. In fact, prison probably does just turn people into more disgusting scum than they were going in.
I agree that prison based rehabilitation programs don't work. Most non-prison rehab programs don't work as well.
I disagree with the second part. It all depends on how long they stay in prison. The longer the sentence the more institutionalized they become. I have the least amount of trouble from my murderers and others who spent 10+ years in prison. They don't want to go back and they now crave structure in their lives.
The really disgusting scum doesn't get let back out unless something like the Innocence Project screws up the process.
I'd be curious to know the overall recidivism rates of people gotten off by this program vs. those released normally.
Quote from: Tyr on November 14, 2009, 02:05:37 PM
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. Chances are, if police is looking for a convenient guy to pin the crime on, that guy is going to be scum. That doesn't mean that our legal system should be used to convict people who you know are scum.
Quote from: Tyr on November 14, 2009, 02:05:37 PM
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 problem is that the guy plead guilty to the crime. All that the Innocence Project accomplished was lessening his sentence. He did what he was convicted of doing.
They let a murderer get out early with predictable results.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 14, 2009, 02:22:12 PM
I'd be curious to know the overall recidivism rates of people gotten off by this program vs. those released normally.
The recidivism rate would be zero since people who are released never offended in the first place. ;)
Quote from: StrixThe really disgusting scum doesn't get let back out unless something like the Innocence Project screws up the process.
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.
Quote from: Stonewall on November 14, 2009, 02:39:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Strix on November 14, 2009, 02:41:14 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on November 14, 2009, 02:39:25 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Stonewall on November 14, 2009, 02:47:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on November 14, 2009, 02:05:37 PM
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.
Quote from: Strix on November 14, 2009, 02:59:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2009, 05:00:21 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 14, 2009, 02:05:37 PM
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.
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.
Read my outline. It's better than the casebook.
It's longer.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 14, 2009, 05:42:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Strix on November 14, 2009, 06:10:57 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 14, 2009, 05:42:25 PM
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.
:lmfao: 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.
Quote from: Strix on November 14, 2009, 06:10:57 PM
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.
Don't be mean to strix, he is a moron.
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.
Quote from: derspiess on November 14, 2009, 10:20:13 PM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on November 14, 2009, 10:20:13 PM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on November 14, 2009, 10:20:13 PM
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.
Quote from: Strix on November 14, 2009, 02:59:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on November 14, 2009, 02:05:37 PM
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 15, 2009, 08:47:10 PM
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?
Quote from: grumbler on November 15, 2009, 09:22:37 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 15, 2009, 08:47:10 PM
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 (http://www.amazon.com/May-God-Have-Mercy-Punishment/dp/0385332947/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258337494&sr=8-1). 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.
Quote from: grumbler on November 15, 2009, 07:42:25 AM
Quote from: derspiess on November 14, 2009, 10:20:13 PM
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 15, 2009, 09:25:05 PM
Link (http://www.amazon.com/May-God-Have-Mercy-Punishment/dp/0385332947/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258337494&sr=8-1). 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! :D
Quote from: grumbler on November 15, 2009, 09:46:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Neil on November 15, 2009, 10:04:40 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 15, 2009, 09:46:58 PM
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. :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on November 15, 2009, 10:14:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 15, 2009, 10:04:40 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 15, 2009, 09:46:58 PM
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. :huh:
Accusing someone of being a good friend of a person infamous for his low character and odious personal habits is going too far. :mad:
Quote from: grumbler on November 15, 2009, 07:42:25 AM
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).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 14, 2009, 09:11:34 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on November 16, 2009, 12:36:26 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 14, 2009, 09:11:34 PM
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.
There's a lot of regional and law school affiliated "innocence projects" out there.
You know, to those of you screaming about what this project is doing, the exclusionary rule has been upheld by the supreme court... whatever you think of "getting off on a technicality," there's a simple fact that you have to take for granted: police and prosecutors have to play by the rules, too, or the perp walks.
Quote from: dps on November 16, 2009, 12:36:26 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 14, 2009, 09:11:34 PM
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
In the article they cite to a mistaken witness ID and a misattribution of gun ownership. If two key pieces of evidence do not connect the accused to the crime, that is evidence of innocence.
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2009, 01:02:19 PM
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.
There are a bunch of unaffiliated state and regional "Innocence Projects". This looks like one of them.
QuoteAs 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.
When a lot of laypeople think about the kinds of evidence that is convincing in criminal cases, confessions and eyewitness IDs are often mention. In fact, both have significant reliability problems.