Supreme court decides you have no right to prove your innocence
- Thread starter FUCK THE POLICE
- Start date
The trial puts them there. If they can pay for tests, why not? What good comes of giving them no hope at all? If new evidence comes to light then they need to decide if they'll hear it. If not, it wasn't our cash that was wasted.
what new evidence? There is no new evidence. If there was new evidnece, you might have a point
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
its true, a total and complete fuck up of the "justice" system....in CA, if an inmate up for parole does not admit guilt (which is legally not supposed to matter as admittance of guilt is not to be a factor) the board will 99.9999999% of the time use that against the inmate...as it shows the inmate has "accepted responsibility".
they call it a justice system for a reason....if a new test comes along that can prove innocence, then by all means use it....wtf! so we should just keep them in prison, paying their "care"....
nonsense, the whole reason the BOP is so high is because of the severity of the rights taken away upon CONVICTION.....CONVICTION OF GUILT
the state won't let you commit suicide or assisted suicide because the state is "looking out for you" its citizen....yet, here, its a big F U citizen....
unbelievable ruling, i did not read the whole ruling, so if someone has some minutia as to why this should stand....what is it and how is it so powerful that it negates the right to prove your innocence?
think about it, if the innocence are in prison, the guilty are out there.....
Silliness, if they are paying for tests they may find new exonerating evidence, if they do it would be new evidence.
I see no reason to stop them from wasting their own money, or the money of a .org, so long as it isn't my tax dollars, if they are innocent let them go.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
are you actually telling me, that in a criminal adjudication, if a test, and the convict pays for it....comes along that can prove innocence decades later, that....fuck it....they had their chance at some archaic exam and turned that down....
seriously, we are not talking abstracts, we are talking justice and hitting the heart of the justice system....the innocent go free and the guilty rot....using a simple balancing test shows the silliness of denying the inmate the right to challenge a conviction based upon new evidence. that new evidence should be the DNA....a writ of habeas corpus allows an inmate to challenge a conviction that he cannot appeal due to statutes of limitations....why deny that right here?
is the test evidence or not?
Again, I would write a law that would allow him as many tests as he could pay for, and if it actually exonerated him it would only be for the better.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
IMHO, the same mentality that has kept Leonard Peltier in jail all these years is in action here. The "system" does NOT like to admit error....especially where minorities are concerned. The fear that this could open the door and shed light on other unjust rulings forces the powers that be to circle the wagons.
In this particular case, there is no compelling reason to believe the evidence would exonerate him if *HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART* HE REFUSED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE DNA TEST WHEN IT COULD HAVE EXONERATED HIM
the obvious truth you are all avoiding is that he avoided the test because he's guilty. He was identified by the victim and his fellow attacker.
did you people even read the fucking details of the decision?
Last edited:
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
The constitutionally of being able to have access to evidence that could prove your innocence had nothing to do with the preponderance of evidence against this one guy and whether or not he is in fact guilty or innocent. The worrisome thing here is that the justices decided that in EVERY case, regardless, you have no constitutional right to the evidence that may or may not exonerate you. The details of this one case mean absolutely nothing to the constitutional grounds for the decision.
Bfgrn
New member
THEN...the fucking DNA test would PROVE he is guilty...or innocent...
The LAWYER who avoided the DNA test does not have to serve a sentence, he gets to go home to his family...who KNOWS, maybe the lawyer refused the DNA testing because he had a plane to catch, was going sailing that day and rain was forecast for the rest of the week, he was on vacation or maybe he had a promise for a blow job from his secretary...
This is WRONG and unjust, because now the courts have created a situation where the LAWYER's competence becomes paramount to the outcome of a case instead of the hard evidence...
Bfgrn
New member
The only stupid one here is you Tinfoil... you don't GET it, you don't understand the intent of our justice system...and you never will, unless YOU become the victim of our broken criminal justice system...
Confessions or admission of guilt can be coerced by dishonest police. Or a defendant's lawyer can be incompetent, bias or just give the client bad advice...
I fail to understand your objection to the DNA testing...if you are SO SURE the person is guilty, why WOULDN'T you want the testing done?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Or maybe everyone went home; because he CONFESSED!!
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Then is it safe to say that part of your angst is because you were a "victim" of "our broken criminal justice system"??
Bfgrn
New member
"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own."
Thomas Jefferson
I will resurrect a previous thread...please read:
Conservatives and the "Justice" System
Bfgrn
New member
So, it must of been a conservative little devil sitting on his shoulder, who made him confess...so that is now the reason why the conservatives are heartless and not fit to called human beings... and as we all know, every criminal never did the crime they are locked for...
Did the thought ever cross your mind that we don't live in a black or white world?
This ignores the fact that the test he refused is prehistoric, and would point to 16% of all black men as the perpetrator. The chances are this ancient test was taken, and pointed to him incorrectly therefore wasn't brought forward by the defense attorney.
Newer testing is far more accurate, and is "new" evidence.
IMO, regardless of a refusal to include the ancient test that likely would have implicated him, if he can pay for it there is no reason to refuse new evidence.
There are many reasons that people might refuse to defend themselves vigorously, gangs threatening family for example, that later may become moot. It is best to give freedom to as many people who have not committed a crime as possible. This is just one tool for it. "The land of the free." needs to begin acting like the Land of the Free.