Texas DNA Exonerees

Remove all ads!

We always talk about how Texas is hard on crime. But when they're wrong they do their damnest to set things right. I think this should be a model for the entire nation.

One of the biggest issues I could think of for exonerees is just how do they provide for themselves. They basically have no skills and are left out on the street without means to support themselves -- what direction do they go in? Probably in the direction they have been taught for the past several years (i.e., crime). Texas is actually doing something about that.

 

I'm shocked that this is what Texas does for the exact reason you state - they have a history of being very tough on crime. $80,000 for each year wrongly spent behind bars is pretty generous, and then annual payments of $40,000 per year thereafter is also great - I'm sure many would blow the lump sum payment.

 

so.... The state sends down the wrong person, and the tax payer fronts the bill.

 

Well, it's better than punishing the person even after they've been proven innocent. If society (12 jurors) is the one that messed up, it only seems logical that society should pay.

 

Yeah, well, you know, as tax payer, you are the state.

 

You ever been on a jury Nog?

The prosecution (the state) must have had a good case.

I agree with helping them find work, training them etc.. but that sum of money? Thats more then some people will earn in a lifetime.

 

DMC, I take it you would advise never using a public defender, then? Even if, say, the case against you is paper thin, the only witness is in prison for fraud, falsifying records, and perjury, and the arresting officer is currently doing time for five different counts of planting evidence?

 

well, DMC, in the UK, if a case doesnt have real evidence the judge can acquit, and likewise he tells the jury, if there is any doubt they have to acquit.

I think its to protect innocent people from juries, I have always said myself that jury trials are not fair trials, but knowing that a judge has executive power makes me feel better.

 

Jurors have emotions, some people praise jury trials others doubt them.

A person who claimed to be innocent of a crime he was charged with (and then find himself found "not guilty") said he felt juries were sharp but that he was worried he felt he was found not guilty more due to his knowledge of and relationships to people in the criminal justice system and money for a lawyer than his lack of guilt. Thus it seems he was praising juries even as he criticized the rest of the judicial system.

In a non-criminal case involving medical malpractice I know (spoken repeatedly with one of the sides involved) of the jury was moved by emotional desire to award something to the family suing as they had a handicapped child.

While deliberating they asked the judge if they could award damages if they found the doctor at hand was not at fault/responsible for the problem. The judge said no so the jury found fault (likely, as they would not have otherwise asked the question) for the purpose of awarding money to the handicapped child's family.

Of course there is some unmentioned background to the story.

The jury only awarded 1/3 of what the family asked for but that amount was so large it made the papers-perhaps because the jury didn't know what the average award for a such a family was (a law was already put on the books capping awards for this to far below the amount, I believe the cap doesn't include medical expenses as this money was above and beyond what was needed for care of the child).

Besides the question of large awards there was the unmentioned story of business relations with the doctor and other medical groups by the hospital. The parents opted not to sue the hospital nor a doctor still working there. This doctor worked for the hospital itself and served as a witness for the family suing. The hospital (it could be argued) helped the family sue this other doctor (more than one involved in the situation) because it was ending its contract with a medical group he belonged to and this was a way to push a lawsuit that could be headed their way towards someone else. The reason for ending the contract wasn't poor performance on by the medical group but that the hospital in question had made a new contract with a larger medical organization that, as part of its contract, insisted it exclusively be used for multiple things including what the few things the medical group did. A side irony here is that the doctor who may have done something medically improper was the doctor attached to the hospital that served as a witness for the people doing the suing.

A think those 2 bits of background may have been interesting to the jury and may have had an impact on how much they would have awarded had they been mentioned. But technically they aren't relevant to the question of if the doctor being sued was at fault so I doubt they were brought to the jury's attention.

This means that you can have juries swayed by emotions to go against the supposed purpose of a court-which is to determine guilt/innocence or responsible/not in addition to not being fully informed.

It also means the court system is being used, perhaps inappropriately, to serve a function that insurance systems arguably should.

If experts decided this case the results would likely be different. But there is also the possibility such a case would go against social approval-such as if a crime was committed that the jury felt benefitted society.

So should juries or "experts" decide cases?

 

Technically, in the US, a jury must acquit if there is any 'reasonable doubt' to the defendant's innocence or guilt. Realistically, juries are made of 12 pseudo-random people who probably want to go home more than anything else.

 

"If the glove does not fit, you must acquit!" - Johnny Cochran

 

12 Angry Men is a great play. I'm not sure about any of the movie renditions, though.

 

The older Black & White version with Fonda, Klugman, etc. was very good. A classic that is part of my DVD collection.