3 ms·

According to a new report by the Innocence Project, those 250 prisoners served 3,160 years between them; 17 spent time on death row. Remarkably, 67 percent of t

According to a new report by the Innocence Project, those 250 prisoners served 3,160 years between them; 17 spent time on death row. Remarkably, 67 percent of them were convicted after 2000—a decade after the onset of modern DNA testing. My guess: more often than not, it's simply an issue of legal politics. Investigators or prosecutors have pressure put on them to lock up somebody . . . anybody as a means to close a case or re-direct media attention. Getting the actual culprit almost seems to be of secondary importance. Loose killers/rapists demand much more media attention than those who've been put behind bars, and having such people on the loose means that people might portray their local law enforcement officials as "not doing their jobs". @asolove: Well, there's that Florida man who was exonerated after 35 years in prison, thanks to DNA evidence: http://crimesandjustice.com/james-bain-freed-35yrs-prison-innocent-man http://crimesandjustice.com/james-bain-freed-35yrs-prison-in...

khafra 17y ago
Also, by all accounts I've read, forensic science isn't exactly held to scientific standards--they use so many tests that have never been experimentally evaluated, it could more accurately be called forensic folklore. Since judges and lawyers are seldom clueful about the natural sciences, often very strong evidence is ignored in favor of the word of an "expert."
- eru 17y ago
  Or witnesses.
cjbos 17y ago
I'm taking the intro to Criminal Justice course this semester at my local community college at night, I've had 2 classes so far, so take this with a grain of salt. But in our last class we were told that the majority of wrongful convictions have been due to incorrect eye witness identification. Whether this was due to a actual mistake on behalf of the witness, or due to mistakes in how the photo selection or lineup was conducted by the law enforcement officer.

khafra 17y ago

Also, by all accounts I've read, forensic science isn't exactly held to scientific standards--they use so many tests that have never been experimentally evaluated, it could more accurately be called forensic folklore. Since judges and lawyers are seldom clueful about the natural sciences, often very strong evidence is ignored in favor of the word of an "expert."

eru 17y ago
Or witnesses.

cjbos 17y ago

I'm taking the intro to Criminal Justice course this semester at my local community college at night, I've had 2 classes so far, so take this with a grain of salt. But in our last class we were told that the majority of wrongful convictions have been due to incorrect eye witness identification. Whether this was due to a actual mistake on behalf of the witness, or due to mistakes in how the photo selection or lineup was conducted by the law enforcement officer.