- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,257
- Reaction score
- 2,693
Isn't that what they call it when you kill an innocent man? Oh, wait, of course not. Murder is unlawful killing so when it's done by the law then it can't be murder - no matter what the evidence says.
You see, we still believe in innocent until proven guilty but I can tell you from my experience, twice as witness and once as defendant, court is theatre, court is sport. I've been prompted by the police to say things that I couldn't have any knowledge of (we know he did it! It would help us put this guy away) and I've seen how flimsy an alibi can get even if 100% legit. I've seen how things come down to legal technicalities and stuff the evidence.
In truth the default is guilty until proven innocent. The public perception is that the police wouldn't even bring an innocent person to court - that is a bias that you have to fight from the start and you can't rely on mere innocence and expect the court to find it.
That said, once convicted, and especially of a serious crime, the system goes into overdrive to protect itself from having to admit a mistake. Even when witnesses recant or new evidence shows up and if the trial were held again today knowing what we know there would never be a conviction - or maybe particularly then - the system will resist giving you the chance to clear your name.
One strange and perverse horror that I've seen occur again and again and again is this. Innocent people go before parole boards and clemency boards and state with the utter conviction of their innocence that they did not commit the horrific crime and they are routinely written off as unrepentant and therefore fit for the harshest punishment. Only innocent people maintain their innocence when the cost is so high. Guilty people know that by being contrite they can get a better deal and willingly do it. For the innocent it required that they betray themselves and lie to the world that they have been justly punished when, in fact, they have suffered enormous injustice.
Today Troy Davis may have come to the end of his play.
You see, we still believe in innocent until proven guilty but I can tell you from my experience, twice as witness and once as defendant, court is theatre, court is sport. I've been prompted by the police to say things that I couldn't have any knowledge of (we know he did it! It would help us put this guy away) and I've seen how flimsy an alibi can get even if 100% legit. I've seen how things come down to legal technicalities and stuff the evidence.
In truth the default is guilty until proven innocent. The public perception is that the police wouldn't even bring an innocent person to court - that is a bias that you have to fight from the start and you can't rely on mere innocence and expect the court to find it.
That said, once convicted, and especially of a serious crime, the system goes into overdrive to protect itself from having to admit a mistake. Even when witnesses recant or new evidence shows up and if the trial were held again today knowing what we know there would never be a conviction - or maybe particularly then - the system will resist giving you the chance to clear your name.
One strange and perverse horror that I've seen occur again and again and again is this. Innocent people go before parole boards and clemency boards and state with the utter conviction of their innocence that they did not commit the horrific crime and they are routinely written off as unrepentant and therefore fit for the harshest punishment. Only innocent people maintain their innocence when the cost is so high. Guilty people know that by being contrite they can get a better deal and willingly do it. For the innocent it required that they betray themselves and lie to the world that they have been justly punished when, in fact, they have suffered enormous injustice.
Today Troy Davis may have come to the end of his play.
