3 ms·

So if someone is convicted of a crime in a perfectly fair and objective process and we later find conclusive and indisputable evidence that they are, without a

So if someone is convicted of a crime in a perfectly fair and objective process and we later find conclusive and indisputable evidence that they are, without a shadow of a doubt, completely and entirely innocent it’s perfectly acceptable that they be forced to serve their sentence? Including a death sentence? It’s perfectly acceptable that they have no right to appeal their conviction or sentence on a showing of actual innocence? I think that’s very easy for some people to hand wave away as just “a cost of doing business” in a system of justice but is shockingly and appallingly costly for the people who are unfairly burdened with shouldering that “cost” for the rest of us.

mrguyorama 4y ago
I believe that hundreds of definitely guilty people should go free to prevent one innocent person from going to prison. Other people feel the opposite way, which is how you get the above statements.
simonh 4y ago
My apologies, I didn’t make myself clear at all. I was commenting on the judges explanation of his legal powers and responsibilities. There should always be avenues of appeal available. The design of the system isn’t for judges to decide though, that belongs to legislators. There’s a flaw in the system there, but not with the judge. He’s just explaining his duties according to the law. If you want the law changed, reasonably I think in this case, that’s a political matter not a judicial one.