Requiem For Justice

There are more than two million people behind bars in this country. Assuming Law Enforcement gets it right 95% of the time, that leaves open the possibility that as many as 100,000 innocent people are locked up as we speak. In the nearly twenty years since DNA technology became available, more than 150 people have been released from Death Row alone.
Countless more have had to be released from prison in general but I want to get back to the Death Row people for a moment. These are people that the government was prepared, even eager, to kill for crimes they did not commit. Recently in Florida, a man convicted of murder and sentenced to death died of cancer after 18 years on Death Row. Eight months AFTER his death, DNA tests were finally allowed by the state, which had fought them tooth and nail to this point. No match. This man wasted the last 18 years of his life in a cage with the prospect of his own murder hanging over his head 24/7, all for a crime he did not commit. His family was robbed of his presence those last eighteen years, as well as being robbed of their chance to say goodbye to him before he died. He died alone, in a cage, for no good reason. Also in Florida, Dade county and Broward county had a serial killer of prostitutes on their hands. A man, clearly mentally disabled, was arrested and convicted for murdering six women, three in each county. After years of fighting it, Broward county finally agreed to test the DNA and found, to their surprise, that it did not match the convicted man. In fact, it was a dead on match for another man who, in the intervening years, had been sent to prison for other crimes. The Broward State Attorney had the convictions withdrawn. They then contacted the Dade State Attorney, a woman named Katherine Fernandez Rundle, suggesting that she might want to take another look at the three cases from her jurisdiction as well. Her response? "I don't have to run any tests. I know I convicted the right man."
If you were wondering how innocent people wind up in prison, you can stop now. This is but one reason that it is frighteningly easy to convict innocent people. There are others. Let's examine a few.
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
If you are one of those people who get all of your knowledge of our justice system from T.V., then you probably believe that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This is a myth. In order to prove it, you must put yourself in other people's shoes for a moment.
If you were a police officer, would you really go around arresting people if you thought they were innocent? As a prosecutor, would you put people on trial if you thought they were innocent? What about a judge? Would you allow people to be put on trial, their lives laid waste, in your hallowed courtroom if you thought they were innocent? The answer to all of these questions is "of course not." You would have to believe they were guilty to put someone through a nightmare like that. So who is it exactly that is presuming your innocence? The defense attorney, right? WRONG! If you were to conduct a survey of defense attorneys, you would find that most of them presume their client's guilt. It cuts down on surprises. That's why most of them don't even ask the defendant if he actually did it. Well, if none of the official players are presuming your innocence, then it must be the jury. Nope. The reason for this is simple. As a point of Human nature, we like to think the worst of strangers because it makes us feel better about ourselves. "I may cheat on my wife but at least I'm not a cold-blooded killer like THIS guy." The truth is no one is presuming your innocence. Quite the contrary. From your first interrogation to your last day in prison, and for the rest of your life, once accused you are nose to nose with one person after another who is sure you did it. Even after a certain and public exoneration, I guarantee many in the community will remain convinced of your guilt.
THE POLICE ALWAYS TRY THEIR HARDEST AND NEVER LIE.
Yeah, and I have a tendency toward brevity of thought. Although most police officers are honest and sincerely trying to get it right, many are not. Many look for shortcuts. It's understandable, to a point. They are overwhelmed with cases. One very common way that the shortcut method manifests itself is through what I call LCS or, Lazy Cop Syndrome. This is when a police officer will be investigating a crime, do background checks until he finds someone with a record and the investigation screeches to a halt right there. Arrest him, charge him, scare him with threats of multiple charges and many years behind bars unless he cooperates. Then you just sit back and wait. Sometime before trial, the prosecutor will offer him a sweetheart deal with little or no jail time as long as he pleads guilty, usually to a lesser charge. Most ex cons will jump at this to avoid the possibilty of a lengthy sentence. Officer closes a case, prosecutor gets a guilty plea which, on their record looks just as good as a guilty verdict and the judge has another person "found" guilty in his courtroom. Everybody wins. The system works and "justice" has prevailed.
Although most police officers would never lie about a case, there are, unfortunately, plenty who will. The chances of being caught are almost nil. In many cases it's a good career move. Who will the judge and jury believe? The officer or the criminal? Who would you believe? Sometimes when a case is weak, it's because you have the wrong guy. For some officers, that doesn't matter. Many prosecutors are willing to pretend like they don't know a case is being "fudged." Evidence gets lost, witnesses who don't help the State's case are not called or even revealed to the defense, who often lack the resources of the State to go out and find these witnesses themselves. Why is it so often left up to appellate attorneys to scratch and claw against the State's best efforts to the contrary in order to get DNA evidence tested? If the State is so sure they have the right guy, shouldn't they be the ones clamoring for these tests? Why have many states passed laws recently requiring the state to do pre-trial testing of any potential DNA evidence? Because the justice system doesn't like it when the truth muddies the waters of zeal. A prosecutor's career would be pretty short if too many defendants turned out to be innocent. Watch how fast a judge gets branded as "soft on crime" for letting too many defendants go free simply because they were innocent. Guilty people being punished is justice. Innocent people having to be set free is merely an embarrassment that no one wants to acknowledge, let alone be party to. Not good for the career.
Would it surprise you to learn that I support the death penalty? I really believe there are some people we just don't need. Also, like almost everyone else, if someone hurts someone I love, I am going to want my pound of flesh. When all the political posturing is put aside, that is what the death penalty is really all about. Revenge. That's why we have it and that's why we want it. It is not a deterrent. Look at Texas. More "law abiding citizens" carrying guns than almost any other state (obviously not the deterrent the NRA would like you to believe, either) and look at their murder rate. It's gotten so bad that they had to put in an express lane on their Death Row and there is still no end in sight. Clearly, rushing the process doesn't increase the deterrence factor much either. That's because there isn't one. People who want to kill will kill. Face it. The only thing you get from speeding up the execution process is more opportunities to kill innocent people before we have the chance to find out we were wrong. It is for this reason that, even though I support the Death Penalty, I would like to see us have the modicum of wisdom and restraint of our emotions to put it's application on hold until we can establish with reasonable certainty that we are killing the right person. Maybe I'm the strange one, I don't know, but the idea of not wanting to execute innocent people doesn't seem all that radical to me.
150 men released from Death Row. Many of whom would doubtless have been executed by now, if not for science and a series of brave, uphill battles, against the Government, by those who want to make sure we get it right.
What about all of the people that we executed before DNA? Can you really be sure they were all guilty? What about all of the people awaiting execution right now where there is no DNA to test? Are we really certain they are all guilty too? Really? How?
I refer you once again to the wisdom of Katherine Fernandez Rundle:
"I don't have to do any tests. I know I convicted the right man."