Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

« Norman Mailer's Troubles with the Times | Main | More links in the theme »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I too tend to think that actual innocence should trump all consideration of finality issues, however, I can atleast understand the concept of preventing renewed attacks on a verdict at every scientific advance or indication of less than stellar legal representation at trial.

We may want to "undo history" with all these apologies for slavery and adoption of politically correct modes of expression but such things should not go on in a courtroom. There may be an advantage in a jury knowing that their deliberations should be with the utmost seriousness as it is something that will not easily be cast aside later.

Prosecutors and appellate judges often resist releasing rape defendants upon a mere determination of "not the defendant's dna" since that doesn't exclude the defendant from having committed a rape but not having ejaculated. The fact that the complainant and the prosecutor each viewed the crime at trial as being that of a sole perpetrator is often not persuasive. Judges and prosecutors send people to prison. Its often simply not in their nature to release them.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search CLEWS

  • Google