Getting political for a moment
Today there was a story on NPR that prompted me to do a little digging, because I thought what they said couldn't possibly be true. I was wrong.
There was a case before the Supreme Court, this case is controversial, and it is not the point, so I won't bring it up. The dissenting opinion is the point. The important bit is on the bottom of the second page:
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable."
So, not only is innocence an irrelevant point in legal cases (even ones involving the death penalty), but it is entirely feasible for a case that produces a false conviction to still be considered "full and fair". The only thing that matters is who was able to convince the judge and jury that they were right. All these years, and our legal system is still trial by combat, we've just replaced weapons with rhetoric.
Now, to be fair, I recognize that establishing guaranteed guilt or innocence after the fact is nearly impossible, and I don't have any suggestions as to how to do it better. But to say that it doesn't matter?
There was a case before the Supreme Court, this case is controversial, and it is not the point, so I won't bring it up. The dissenting opinion is the point. The important bit is on the bottom of the second page:
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable."
So, not only is innocence an irrelevant point in legal cases (even ones involving the death penalty), but it is entirely feasible for a case that produces a false conviction to still be considered "full and fair". The only thing that matters is who was able to convince the judge and jury that they were right. All these years, and our legal system is still trial by combat, we've just replaced weapons with rhetoric.
Now, to be fair, I recognize that establishing guaranteed guilt or innocence after the fact is nearly impossible, and I don't have any suggestions as to how to do it better. But to say that it doesn't matter?