DNA Clears Texas Man After 18 Years

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

If the state couldn't afford to pay the money they shouldnt have jailed him for 18 years, and if you call the 1980s Texas Justice system anything but corrupt, skewed, and racist you don't know enough about it.

And the very moment you provide information showing that this case experienced corrupt, skewed, and racist behavior, as shown by an independent investigation, I'll be 110% onboard with giving this man anything and everything he wants, on the taxpayers' expense.

Until then, however, all citizens of this country voluntarily submit that one of the "rights" of living in the US is that you can be accused of any crime and will receive a fair and just trial, by a jury of your peers - whose verdict, barring any proven unfairness or breach of justice, you agree to abide by.

If you, for whatever reason, do not agree to this system, then the US will not, to my knowledge, do anything to prevent you from leaving the country.

They were wrong. He was not guilty. He was thrown in jail for 18 years for a crime he did not commit. How fair and just is that? The system is not perfect, I know.
But...that is not the issue here and saying something like that is just diverting everyone from that issue. Yeah, they made a mistake. Can't change the past.


The issue is that the man was innocent, and should be compensated to a higher degree.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: wvtalbot
250k? for 18 years? Gotta love the Texas Justice system

Thats less than $14k per year, sucks actually

That whats I meant, this guy should be able to sue for millions.

Why?

How much is 18 years of YOUR life worth?

But who is he going to sue? 😕

I mean, he was convicted on the best evidence available at the time. The trial was deemed to be fair and just - but wrong. Are you gonna sue the judge? The jurors? The "witness" who picked him from the line-up? Or just arbitrarily sue "Texas" because you were wronged?

I agree that it's a ****** situation, but I don't get what "Sue 'em!" will accomplish.

I'll bite. The prosecution. There's an ethical and moral reason behind the idea that you are sure the individual you are prosecuting is guilty. Just because you *can* convince a jury that the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean you ignore your own good judgment and sense. We have an adversarial system. The burden is not on the defendant to prove his innocence, but for the state to prove his guilt. The state proved his guilt. Only problem was that he was not guilty. They erred. It doesn't matter if it was not foreseeable, but they did, and they should be punished.

Why are citizens held to a higher standard of proof and morals than the government? There should be equivalency. No one knows the facts of a case, but the general rule is that a prosecutor doesn't prosecute unless they are 100% certain in their gut and mind that the person is guilty. Who pays the cost? The state.

Why shouldn't the state pay? Who has to pay your costs if you are judged not guilty? You. In an adversarial system, why should the defendant pay his costs if the state can't prove their case? Furthermore, why shouldn't the state have to compensate him for lost time and earning power if they wrongly convict him? The Constitution seems pretty clear to me. The burden is on the state, so why has it shifted so much to the accused?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: GhostDoggy

Originally posted by: wvtalbot
250k? for 18 years? Gotta love the Texas Justice system

I'm wondering if he can take civil action against the women that accused him.

yes let's send victims of crimes the message that if they mistakenly finger someone they get sued. that will certainly not let criminals roam free without fear of being identified. they'll save money in masks, that's for sure.

Who is more innocent? A crime victim or someone who was wrongfully accused?

 

[silverpig]

It should be $250k per year he was in.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

If the state couldn't afford to pay the money they shouldnt have jailed him for 18 years, and if you call the 1980s Texas Justice system anything but corrupt, skewed, and racist you don't know enough about it.

And the very moment you provide information showing that this case experienced corrupt, skewed, and racist behavior, as shown by an independent investigation, I'll be 110% onboard with giving this man anything and everything he wants, on the taxpayers' expense.

Until then, however, all citizens of this country voluntarily submit that one of the "rights" of living in the US is that you can be accused of any crime and will receive a fair and just trial, by a jury of your peers - whose verdict, barring any proven unfairness or breach of justice, you agree to abide by.

If you, for whatever reason, do not agree to this system, then the US will not, to my knowledge, do anything to prevent you from leaving the country.

They were wrong. He was not guilty. He was thrown in jail for 18 years for a crime he did not commit. How fair and just is that? The system is not perfect, I know.
But...that is not the issue here and saying something like that is just diverting everyone from that issue. Yeah, they made a mistake. Can't change the past.


The issue is that the man was innocent, and should be compensated to a higher degree.

the problem is you don't want to give the state a reason to stop looking at DNA in other cases because they simply can't afford to keep giving out millions to people who were wrongly accused. does it suck? hell yes. would i pissed? damn right. unfortunately it's what we have.

besides, there is a reason he was in the lineup. i somehow doubt he was randomly pulled out of his house and put in a lineup and then identified as a possible suspect or the person who commited the crime. it's not like he was sitting at home eating hot wings and then the next thing he knows he's in jail.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: wvtalbot
250k? for 18 years? Gotta love the Texas Justice system

Thats less than $14k per year, sucks actually

That whats I meant, this guy should be able to sue for millions.

Why?

How much is 18 years of YOUR life worth?

But who is he going to sue? 😕

I mean, he was convicted on the best evidence available at the time. The trial was deemed to be fair and just - but wrong. Are you gonna sue the judge? The jurors? The "witness" who picked him from the line-up? Or just arbitrarily sue "Texas" because you were wronged?

I agree that it's a ****** situation, but I don't get what "Sue 'em!" will accomplish.

I'll bite. The prosecution. There's an ethical and moral reason behind the idea that you are sure the individual you are prosecuting is guilty. Just because you *can* convince a jury that the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean you ignore your own good judgment and sense. We have an adversarial system. The burden is not on the defendant to prove his innocence, but for the state to prove his guilt. The state proved his guilt. Only problem was that he was not guilty. They erred. It doesn't matter if it was not foreseeable, but they did, and they should be punished.

Why are citizens held to a higher standard of proof and morals than the government? There should be equivalency. No one knows the facts of a case, but the general rule is that a prosecutor doesn't prosecute unless they are 100% certain in their gut and mind that the person is guilty. Who pays the cost? The state.

Why shouldn't the state pay? Who has to pay your costs if you are judged not guilty? You. In an adversarial system, why should the defendant pay his costs if the state can't prove their case? Furthermore, why shouldn't the state have to compensate him for lost time and earning power if they wrongly convict him? The Constitution seems pretty clear to me. The burden is on the state, so why has it shifted so much to the accused?

why not have the defense lawyer pay? if he was truely innocent why didn't he do a better job getting him off?

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: GhostDoggy

Originally posted by: wvtalbot
250k? for 18 years? Gotta love the Texas Justice system

I'm wondering if he can take civil action against the women that accused him.

yes let's send victims of crimes the message that if they mistakenly finger someone they get sued. that will certainly not let criminals roam free without fear of being identified. they'll save money in masks, that's for sure.

Who is more innocent? A crime victim or someone who was wrongfully accused?

the crime victim. period. you can't put more fear into people than there already is because who knows how many crimes already go unreported.

so now you are going to say "hey it was dark when you were raped, we're going to put up 5 guys, if you see one who looks the same let us know. but if you are wrong he can sue you. have fun picking!"

picking a guy out of a lineup does not put him in jail for 18 years.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

If the state couldn't afford to pay the money they shouldnt have jailed him for 18 years, and if you call the 1980s Texas Justice system anything but corrupt, skewed, and racist you don't know enough about it.

And the very moment you provide information showing that this case experienced corrupt, skewed, and racist behavior, as shown by an independent investigation, I'll be 110% onboard with giving this man anything and everything he wants, on the taxpayers' expense.

Until then, however, all citizens of this country voluntarily submit that one of the "rights" of living in the US is that you can be accused of any crime and will receive a fair and just trial, by a jury of your peers - whose verdict, barring any proven unfairness or breach of justice, you agree to abide by.

If you, for whatever reason, do not agree to this system, then the US will not, to my knowledge, do anything to prevent you from leaving the country.

Yeah, too bad for you your opinion doesn't matter though and even the state of Texas itself thinks this man deserves compensation, don't like it go lobby somewhere.

Why are you even in this thread? Can't you troll elsewhere, just for today?

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: GhostDoggy

Originally posted by: wvtalbot
250k? for 18 years? Gotta love the Texas Justice system

I'm wondering if he can take civil action against the women that accused him.

yes let's send victims of crimes the message that if they mistakenly finger someone they get sued. that will certainly not let criminals roam free without fear of being identified. they'll save money in masks, that's for sure.

Who is more innocent? A crime victim or someone who was wrongfully accused?

so now you are going to say "hey it was dark when you were raped, we're going to put up 5 guys, if you see one who looks the same let us know. but if you are wrong he can sue you. have fun picking!"

Actually, that is exactly what I would do. If the "witness" claims that they are sure it is the person, then it should be on them. Now, if they say "well, it looks like that guy but I am not positive" and the prosecution lies, then it would be the prosecution.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: GhostDoggy

Originally posted by: wvtalbot
250k? for 18 years? Gotta love the Texas Justice system

I'm wondering if he can take civil action against the women that accused him.

yes let's send victims of crimes the message that if they mistakenly finger someone they get sued. that will certainly not let criminals roam free without fear of being identified. they'll save money in masks, that's for sure.

Who is more innocent? A crime victim or someone who was wrongfully accused?

the crime victim. period. you can't put more fear into people than there already is because who knows how many crimes already go unreported.

so now you are going to say "hey it was dark when you were raped, we're going to put up 5 guys, if you see one who looks the same let us know. but if you are wrong he can sue you. have fun picking!"

picking a guy out of a lineup does not put him in jail for 18 years.

How would a crime victim be more innoncent? That was my point. There's no way to say either deserve preference over the other. Fact is, there's a difference in saying "That's the guy who did it and I'm sure" and saying "That looks like the tattoo that the guy had." You can't blame the victim in this, but you can certainly assign blame to someone here.

What is insane is acting as if the misidentified person is less innoncent than the victim or at fault in any way. I think you'd feel very different if you were in his shoes.

I don't think people should be able to sue victims unless they engaged in malacious tactics, hid evidence, or lied about being a victim of a crime. However, why should a man who didn't do anything wrong have to suffer? Texas made the mistake by prosecuting him. In my eyes it doesn't matter what the jury did. You've got juries that should have convicted (like OJ) and then juries that got absolutely zero evidence, and convicted someone because of the way they looked or acted in court. The problem with the American system is that it relies on a jury of idiots to establish guilt. Any skilled defense attorney or prosecutor can mold a jury a certain way, and in anti-crime string-em-up Texas I'm not shocked at how the jury concluded. The prosecutor and judge have a role to play too, and that role includes making sure a case should be prosecuted.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: GhostDoggy

Originally posted by: wvtalbot
250k? for 18 years? Gotta love the Texas Justice system

I'm wondering if he can take civil action against the women that accused him.

yes let's send victims of crimes the message that if they mistakenly finger someone they get sued. that will certainly not let criminals roam free without fear of being identified. they'll save money in masks, that's for sure.

Who is more innocent? A crime victim or someone who was wrongfully accused?

the crime victim. period. you can't put more fear into people than there already is because who knows how many crimes already go unreported.

so now you are going to say "hey it was dark when you were raped, we're going to put up 5 guys, if you see one who looks the same let us know. but if you are wrong he can sue you. have fun picking!"

picking a guy out of a lineup does not put him in jail for 18 years.

How would a crime victim be more innoncent? That was my point. There's no way to say either deserve preference over the other. Fact is, there's a difference in saying "That's the guy who did it and I'm sure" and saying "That looks like the tattoo that the guy had." You can't blame the victim in this, but you can certainly assign blame to someone here.

What is insane is acting as if the misidentified person is less innoncent than the victim or at fault in any way. I think you'd feel very different if you were in his shoes.

I don't think people should be able to sue victims unless they engaged in malacious tactics, hid evidence, or lied about being a victim of a crime. However, why should a man who didn't do anything wrong have to suffer? Texas made the mistake by prosecuting him. In my eyes it doesn't matter what the jury did. You've got juries that should have convicted (like OJ) and then juries that got absolutely zero evidence, and convicted someone because of the way they looked or acted in court. The problem with the American system is that it relies on a jury of idiots to establish guilt. Any skilled defense attorney or prosecutor can mold a jury a certain way, and in anti-crime string-em-up Texas I'm not shocked at how the jury concluded. The prosecutor and judge have a role to play too, and that role includes making sure a case should be prosecuted.

once again. picking someone out of a lineup does not put them in prison. describing a tattoo does not put a person in prison. that person still has to face trial.

however if it was found that there was malicious intent by all means, sue away.

in the future i think texas and other states are simply going to say "it isn't worth the hassle if the guy really is innocent" and just pass on looking back on these things. if i was this guy at this point i'd probably be saying "hell i'm out now, the last 18 years suck but i'm free now, and i'm going to get something to start my life over with." and try and make the best of it. which is probably what he's doing.

i don't know anymore than you what happened in the trial, but i know it's ridiculous to just say "hey sue the victim!!"

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: wvtalbot
250k? for 18 years? Gotta love the Texas Justice system

Thats less than $14k per year, sucks actually

That whats I meant, this guy should be able to sue for millions.

Why?

How much is 18 years of YOUR life worth?

But who is he going to sue? 😕

I mean, he was convicted on the best evidence available at the time. The trial was deemed to be fair and just - but wrong. Are you gonna sue the judge? The jurors? The "witness" who picked him from the line-up? Or just arbitrarily sue "Texas" because you were wronged?

I agree that it's a ****** situation, but I don't get what "Sue 'em!" will accomplish.

I'll bite. The prosecution. There's an ethical and moral reason behind the idea that you are sure the individual you are prosecuting is guilty. Just because you *can* convince a jury that the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean you ignore your own good judgment and sense. We have an adversarial system. The burden is not on the defendant to prove his innocence, but for the state to prove his guilt. The state proved his guilt. Only problem was that he was not guilty. They erred. It doesn't matter if it was not foreseeable, but they did, and they should be punished.

Why are citizens held to a higher standard of proof and morals than the government? There should be equivalency. No one knows the facts of a case, but the general rule is that a prosecutor doesn't prosecute unless they are 100% certain in their gut and mind that the person is guilty. Who pays the cost? The state.

Why shouldn't the state pay? Who has to pay your costs if you are judged not guilty? You. In an adversarial system, why should the defendant pay his costs if the state can't prove their case? Furthermore, why shouldn't the state have to compensate him for lost time and earning power if they wrongly convict him? The Constitution seems pretty clear to me. The burden is on the state, so why has it shifted so much to the accused?

why not have the defense lawyer pay? if he was truely innocent why didn't he do a better job getting him off?

The burden of proof is not on the defendant. A defendant doesn't even have to mount a defense! The job of the prosecution is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They did that, but lacked the essential element of guilt. What evidence was there in this case? That's what will have to be looked at before determining who made the mistake. Was the Defense Attorney a drunkard and an idiot? Was the Prosecutor malicious or hid evidence? Did the witness lie? Was it is a combination of those things? Was it none of those things?

All you can say is that the burden of PROOF lies on the State of Texas. They are the ones that have to "prove" his guilt. I don't care if they got bad evidence or not. They committed a wrong against this man, and 250k is a pittance for 18 years. I don't see why people are always so pro-State on here. If a citizen got bad advice on the legality of a business venture, not a single person would have any sympathy for them if they were arrested. You all would say "ignorance doesn't excuse you from the law." I agree with that. Ignorance, mishandling of a case, or bad circumstances don't excuse a State from imprisoning an innoncent man for 18 years either. And fvck the whole idea of sovereignty preventing lawsuts. That's just asking for a governmental abuse of power.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: wvtalbot
250k? for 18 years? Gotta love the Texas Justice system

Thats less than $14k per year, sucks actually

That whats I meant, this guy should be able to sue for millions.

Why?

How much is 18 years of YOUR life worth?

But who is he going to sue? 😕

I mean, he was convicted on the best evidence available at the time. The trial was deemed to be fair and just - but wrong. Are you gonna sue the judge? The jurors? The "witness" who picked him from the line-up? Or just arbitrarily sue "Texas" because you were wronged?

I agree that it's a ****** situation, but I don't get what "Sue 'em!" will accomplish.

I'll bite. The prosecution. There's an ethical and moral reason behind the idea that you are sure the individual you are prosecuting is guilty. Just because you *can* convince a jury that the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean you ignore your own good judgment and sense. We have an adversarial system. The burden is not on the defendant to prove his innocence, but for the state to prove his guilt. The state proved his guilt. Only problem was that he was not guilty. They erred. It doesn't matter if it was not foreseeable, but they did, and they should be punished.

Why are citizens held to a higher standard of proof and morals than the government? There should be equivalency. No one knows the facts of a case, but the general rule is that a prosecutor doesn't prosecute unless they are 100% certain in their gut and mind that the person is guilty. Who pays the cost? The state.

Why shouldn't the state pay? Who has to pay your costs if you are judged not guilty? You. In an adversarial system, why should the defendant pay his costs if the state can't prove their case? Furthermore, why shouldn't the state have to compensate him for lost time and earning power if they wrongly convict him? The Constitution seems pretty clear to me. The burden is on the state, so why has it shifted so much to the accused?

why not have the defense lawyer pay? if he was truely innocent why didn't he do a better job getting him off?

The burden of proof is not on the defendant. A defendant doesn't even have to mount a defense! The job of the prosecution is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They did that, but lacked the essential element of guilt. What evidence was there in this case? That's what will have to be looked at before determining who made the mistake. Was the Defense Attorney a drunkard and an idiot? Was the Prosecutor malicious or hid evidence? Did the witness lie? Was it is a combination of those things? Was it none of those things?

All you can say is that the burden of PROOF lies on the State of Texas. They are the ones that have to "prove" his guilt. I don't care if they got bad evidence or not. They committed a wrong against this man, and 250k is a pittance for 18 years. I don't see why people are always so pro-State on here. If a citizen got bad advice on the legality of a business venture, not a single person would have any sympathy for them if they were arrested. You all would say "ignorance doesn't excuse you from the law." I agree with that. Ignorance, mishandling of a case, or bad circumstances don't excuse a State from imprisoning an innoncent man for 18 years either. And fvck the whole idea of sovereignty preventing lawsuts. That's just asking for a governmental abuse of power.

apparently the prosecution did a good enough job to put him in there. the idea of not presenting a defense is interesting, but not one i'd go with.

250k is a good start as opposed to spending the rest of your life in prison had this new DNA evidence not come up.

oh and i completely forgot what we're discussing.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: GhostDoggy

Originally posted by: wvtalbot
250k? for 18 years? Gotta love the Texas Justice system

I'm wondering if he can take civil action against the women that accused him.

yes let's send victims of crimes the message that if they mistakenly finger someone they get sued. that will certainly not let criminals roam free without fear of being identified. they'll save money in masks, that's for sure.

Who is more innocent? A crime victim or someone who was wrongfully accused?

the crime victim. period. you can't put more fear into people than there already is because who knows how many crimes already go unreported.

so now you are going to say "hey it was dark when you were raped, we're going to put up 5 guys, if you see one who looks the same let us know. but if you are wrong he can sue you. have fun picking!"

picking a guy out of a lineup does not put him in jail for 18 years.

How would a crime victim be more innoncent? That was my point. There's no way to say either deserve preference over the other. Fact is, there's a difference in saying "That's the guy who did it and I'm sure" and saying "That looks like the tattoo that the guy had." You can't blame the victim in this, but you can certainly assign blame to someone here.

What is insane is acting as if the misidentified person is less innoncent than the victim or at fault in any way. I think you'd feel very different if you were in his shoes.

I don't think people should be able to sue victims unless they engaged in malacious tactics, hid evidence, or lied about being a victim of a crime. However, why should a man who didn't do anything wrong have to suffer? Texas made the mistake by prosecuting him. In my eyes it doesn't matter what the jury did. You've got juries that should have convicted (like OJ) and then juries that got absolutely zero evidence, and convicted someone because of the way they looked or acted in court. The problem with the American system is that it relies on a jury of idiots to establish guilt. Any skilled defense attorney or prosecutor can mold a jury a certain way, and in anti-crime string-em-up Texas I'm not shocked at how the jury concluded. The prosecutor and judge have a role to play too, and that role includes making sure a case should be prosecuted.

once again. picking someone out of a lineup does not put them in prison. describing a tattoo does not put a person in prison. that person still has to face trial.

however if it was found that there was malicious intent by all means, sue away.

in the future i think texas and other states are simply going to say "it isn't worth the hassle if the guy really is innocent" and just pass on looking back on these things. if i was this guy at this point i'd probably be saying "hell i'm out now, the last 18 years suck but i'm free now, and i'm going to get something to start my life over with." and try and make the best of it. which is probably what he's doing.

i don't know anymore than you what happened in the trial, but i know it's ridiculous to just say "hey sue the victim!!"

I didn't say sue the victim. I said the State of Texas is overall liable for what happened to the guy. They prosecuted him. They had the system is which his trial took place. They created the rules for his trial.

You've got a pretty big slippery slope that you fell down. Out of the million or more Criminal Cases that were adjudicated in Texas in the past 18 years, I don't exactly think that there are too many people that would have the same type of beef as this guy. So what if 10 people come forward and sue the State after DNA exonerates them. Don't put people in jail unless they are guilty. Duh. I'd rather a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to jail. Our Declaration of Indepedence values libery and freedom quite highly. When you deprive someone of that (whether by accident or not), you should be liable for it. Period. What is more wrong? Depriving someone of their rights, or not punishing someone for breaking the law? Hard to say, but I'll always think that law breakers will eventually get caught. Something will happen to them -- whether it be karma or another offense -- and they will be punished. You can't expect the same for the innoncent. The system has changed too much to make it very damn near impossible for the convicted to be released. Especially in Texas. Unless you've got fresh evidence there's no point in even talking to an Apellate Judge in Texas. Denied is all they will say.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

And the very moment you provide information showing that this case experienced corrupt, skewed, and racist behavior, as shown by an independent investigation, I'll be 110% onboard with giving this man anything and everything he wants, on the taxpayers' expense.

Until then, however, all citizens of this country voluntarily submit that one of the "rights" of living in the US is that you can be accused of any crime and will receive a fair and just trial, by a jury of your peers - whose verdict, barring any proven unfairness or breach of justice, you agree to abide by.

If you, for whatever reason, do not agree to this system, then the US will not, to my knowledge, do anything to prevent you from leaving the country.

They were wrong. He was not guilty. He was thrown in jail for 18 years for a crime he did not commit. How fair and just is that? The system is not perfect, I know.
But...that is not the issue here and saying something like that is just diverting everyone from that issue. Yeah, they made a mistake. Can't change the past.

The issue is that the man was innocent, and should be compensated to a higher degree.

I disagree. The issue is that the man was processed under a penal system that everyone else is subjected to. In his case, the wrong decision was reached. I've never disagreed that he should be compensated (and will be, as the article states.) My question is simply who should be held responsible. The general consensus is that no one particluar person willfully attempted to prosecute this man, with knowledge that he was not guilty. Therfore, who are you people trying to punish? Who should foot the multi-million dollar lawsuit bill? It has to come from somewhere.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: wvtalbot
250k? for 18 years? Gotta love the Texas Justice system

Thats less than $14k per year, sucks actually

That whats I meant, this guy should be able to sue for millions.

Why?

How much is 18 years of YOUR life worth?

But who is he going to sue? 😕

I mean, he was convicted on the best evidence available at the time. The trial was deemed to be fair and just - but wrong. Are you gonna sue the judge? The jurors? The "witness" who picked him from the line-up? Or just arbitrarily sue "Texas" because you were wronged?

I agree that it's a ****** situation, but I don't get what "Sue 'em!" will accomplish.

I'll bite. The prosecution. There's an ethical and moral reason behind the idea that you are sure the individual you are prosecuting is guilty. Just because you *can* convince a jury that the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean you ignore your own good judgment and sense. We have an adversarial system. The burden is not on the defendant to prove his innocence, but for the state to prove his guilt. The state proved his guilt. Only problem was that he was not guilty. They erred. It doesn't matter if it was not foreseeable, but they did, and they should be punished.

Why are citizens held to a higher standard of proof and morals than the government? There should be equivalency. No one knows the facts of a case, but the general rule is that a prosecutor doesn't prosecute unless they are 100% certain in their gut and mind that the person is guilty. Who pays the cost? The state.

Why shouldn't the state pay? Who has to pay your costs if you are judged not guilty? You. In an adversarial system, why should the defendant pay his costs if the state can't prove their case? Furthermore, why shouldn't the state have to compensate him for lost time and earning power if they wrongly convict him? The Constitution seems pretty clear to me. The burden is on the state, so why has it shifted so much to the accused?

why not have the defense lawyer pay? if he was truely innocent why didn't he do a better job getting him off?

The burden of proof is not on the defendant. A defendant doesn't even have to mount a defense! The job of the prosecution is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They did that, but lacked the essential element of guilt. What evidence was there in this case? That's what will have to be looked at before determining who made the mistake. Was the Defense Attorney a drunkard and an idiot? Was the Prosecutor malicious or hid evidence? Did the witness lie? Was it is a combination of those things? Was it none of those things?

All you can say is that the burden of PROOF lies on the State of Texas. They are the ones that have to "prove" his guilt. I don't care if they got bad evidence or not. They committed a wrong against this man, and 250k is a pittance for 18 years. I don't see why people are always so pro-State on here. If a citizen got bad advice on the legality of a business venture, not a single person would have any sympathy for them if they were arrested. You all would say "ignorance doesn't excuse you from the law." I agree with that. Ignorance, mishandling of a case, or bad circumstances don't excuse a State from imprisoning an innoncent man for 18 years either. And fvck the whole idea of sovereignty preventing lawsuts. That's just asking for a governmental abuse of power.

apparently the prosecution did a good enough job to put him in there. the idea of not presenting a defense is interesting, but not one i'd go with.

250k is a good start as opposed to spending the rest of your life in prison had this new DNA evidence not come up.

oh and i completely forgot what we're discussing.

I'm just telling you who the burden is on. They fvcked up, and I think they should have to pay for it. If a citizen commits a crime by accident they still end up liable for it. What's wrong with holding the government to the same standard it holds us to?

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: GhostDoggy

Originally posted by: wvtalbot
250k? for 18 years? Gotta love the Texas Justice system

I'm wondering if he can take civil action against the women that accused him.

yes let's send victims of crimes the message that if they mistakenly finger someone they get sued. that will certainly not let criminals roam free without fear of being identified. they'll save money in masks, that's for sure.

Who is more innocent? A crime victim or someone who was wrongfully accused?

the crime victim. period. you can't put more fear into people than there already is because who knows how many crimes already go unreported.

so now you are going to say "hey it was dark when you were raped, we're going to put up 5 guys, if you see one who looks the same let us know. but if you are wrong he can sue you. have fun picking!"

picking a guy out of a lineup does not put him in jail for 18 years.

How would a crime victim be more innoncent? That was my point. There's no way to say either deserve preference over the other. Fact is, there's a difference in saying "That's the guy who did it and I'm sure" and saying "That looks like the tattoo that the guy had." You can't blame the victim in this, but you can certainly assign blame to someone here.

What is insane is acting as if the misidentified person is less innoncent than the victim or at fault in any way. I think you'd feel very different if you were in his shoes.

I don't think people should be able to sue victims unless they engaged in malacious tactics, hid evidence, or lied about being a victim of a crime. However, why should a man who didn't do anything wrong have to suffer? Texas made the mistake by prosecuting him. In my eyes it doesn't matter what the jury did. You've got juries that should have convicted (like OJ) and then juries that got absolutely zero evidence, and convicted someone because of the way they looked or acted in court. The problem with the American system is that it relies on a jury of idiots to establish guilt. Any skilled defense attorney or prosecutor can mold a jury a certain way, and in anti-crime string-em-up Texas I'm not shocked at how the jury concluded. The prosecutor and judge have a role to play too, and that role includes making sure a case should be prosecuted.

once again. picking someone out of a lineup does not put them in prison. describing a tattoo does not put a person in prison. that person still has to face trial.

however if it was found that there was malicious intent by all means, sue away.

in the future i think texas and other states are simply going to say "it isn't worth the hassle if the guy really is innocent" and just pass on looking back on these things. if i was this guy at this point i'd probably be saying "hell i'm out now, the last 18 years suck but i'm free now, and i'm going to get something to start my life over with." and try and make the best of it. which is probably what he's doing.

i don't know anymore than you what happened in the trial, but i know it's ridiculous to just say "hey sue the victim!!"

I didn't say sue the victim. I said the State of Texas is overall liable for what happened to the guy. They prosecuted him. They had the system is which his trial took place. They created the rules for his trial.

You've got a pretty big slippery slope that you fell down. Out of the million or more Criminal Cases that were adjudicated in Texas in the past 18 years, I don't exactly think that there are too many people that would have the same type of beef as this guy. So what if 10 people come forward and sue the State after DNA exonerates them. Don't put people in jail unless they are guilty. Duh. I'd rather a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to jail. Our Declaration of Indepedence values libery and freedom quite highly. When you deprive someone of that (whether by accident or not), you should be liable for it. Period. What is more wrong? Depriving someone of their rights, or not punishing someone for breaking the law? Hard to say, but I'll always think that law breakers will eventually get caught. Something will happen to them -- whether it be karma or another offense -- and they will be punished. You can't expect the same for the innoncent. The system has changed too much to make it very damn near impossible for the convicted to be released. Especially in Texas. Unless you've got fresh evidence there's no point in even talking to an Apellate Judge in Texas. Denied is all they will say.

some dude said sue the victim. i gave a reason not to. then you jumped all over my shiznipple about it. freakin alabamians.

 

[wvtalbot]

Originally posted by: Mill

I'm just telling you who the burden is on. They fvcked up, and I think they should have to pay for it. If a citizen commits a crime by accident they still end up liable for it. What's wrong with holding the government to the same standard it holds us to?

It is the states responsibility to deliver justice, the state failed miseribly in the responsibility and should be held respnsible.

 

[josh0099]

I think a good amount for someone like this would be $10,000 untaxed and it goes up by $10,00 each year. So 1st year of jail time would be $10,000, then the 2nd would be $20,000 making a total of $30,000 payed for 2 years unjust.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: wvtalbot
250k? for 18 years? Gotta love the Texas Justice system

Thats less than $14k per year, sucks actually

That whats I meant, this guy should be able to sue for millions.

Why?

How much is 18 years of YOUR life worth?

But who is he going to sue? 😕

I mean, he was convicted on the best evidence available at the time. The trial was deemed to be fair and just - but wrong. Are you gonna sue the judge? The jurors? The "witness" who picked him from the line-up? Or just arbitrarily sue "Texas" because you were wronged?

I agree that it's a ****** situation, but I don't get what "Sue 'em!" will accomplish.

I'll bite. The prosecution. There's an ethical and moral reason behind the idea that you are sure the individual you are prosecuting is guilty. Just because you *can* convince a jury that the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean you ignore your own good judgment and sense. We have an adversarial system. The burden is not on the defendant to prove his innocence, but for the state to prove his guilt. The state proved his guilt. Only problem was that he was not guilty. They erred. It doesn't matter if it was not foreseeable, but they did, and they should be punished.

Why are citizens held to a higher standard of proof and morals than the government? There should be equivalency. No one knows the facts of a case, but the general rule is that a prosecutor doesn't prosecute unless they are 100% certain in their gut and mind that the person is guilty. Who pays the cost? The state.

Why shouldn't the state pay? Who has to pay your costs if you are judged not guilty? You. In an adversarial system, why should the defendant pay his costs if the state can't prove their case? Furthermore, why shouldn't the state have to compensate him for lost time and earning power if they wrongly convict him? The Constitution seems pretty clear to me. The burden is on the state, so why has it shifted so much to the accused?

why not have the defense lawyer pay? if he was truely innocent why didn't he do a better job getting him off?

The burden of proof is not on the defendant. A defendant doesn't even have to mount a defense! The job of the prosecution is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They did that, but lacked the essential element of guilt. What evidence was there in this case? That's what will have to be looked at before determining who made the mistake. Was the Defense Attorney a drunkard and an idiot? Was the Prosecutor malicious or hid evidence? Did the witness lie? Was it is a combination of those things? Was it none of those things?

All you can say is that the burden of PROOF lies on the State of Texas. They are the ones that have to "prove" his guilt. I don't care if they got bad evidence or not. They committed a wrong against this man, and 250k is a pittance for 18 years. I don't see why people are always so pro-State on here. If a citizen got bad advice on the legality of a business venture, not a single person would have any sympathy for them if they were arrested. You all would say "ignorance doesn't excuse you from the law." I agree with that. Ignorance, mishandling of a case, or bad circumstances don't excuse a State from imprisoning an innoncent man for 18 years either. And fvck the whole idea of sovereignty preventing lawsuts. That's just asking for a governmental abuse of power.

apparently the prosecution did a good enough job to put him in there. the idea of not presenting a defense is interesting, but not one i'd go with.

250k is a good start as opposed to spending the rest of your life in prison had this new DNA evidence not come up.

oh and i completely forgot what we're discussing.

I'm just telling you who the burden is on. They fvcked up, and I think they should have to pay for it. If a citizen commits a crime by accident they still end up liable for it. What's wrong with holding the government to the same standard it holds us to?

the problem is that it's going to come out of your pocket and mine. if it was TRUELY coming out of government spending then hey, go for it. but reality is that taxes will be raised to compensate for it. why not just come knock on my door with a bucket and a donations sign?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: wvtalbot
250k? for 18 years? Gotta love the Texas Justice system

Thats less than $14k per year, sucks actually

That whats I meant, this guy should be able to sue for millions.

Why?

How much is 18 years of YOUR life worth?

But who is he going to sue? 😕

I mean, he was convicted on the best evidence available at the time. The trial was deemed to be fair and just - but wrong. Are you gonna sue the judge? The jurors? The "witness" who picked him from the line-up? Or just arbitrarily sue "Texas" because you were wronged?

I agree that it's a ****** situation, but I don't get what "Sue 'em!" will accomplish.

I'll bite. The prosecution. There's an ethical and moral reason behind the idea that you are sure the individual you are prosecuting is guilty. Just because you *can* convince a jury that the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean you ignore your own good judgment and sense. We have an adversarial system. The burden is not on the defendant to prove his innocence, but for the state to prove his guilt. The state proved his guilt. Only problem was that he was not guilty. They erred. It doesn't matter if it was not foreseeable, but they did, and they should be punished.

Why are citizens held to a higher standard of proof and morals than the government? There should be equivalency. No one knows the facts of a case, but the general rule is that a prosecutor doesn't prosecute unless they are 100% certain in their gut and mind that the person is guilty. Who pays the cost? The state.

Why shouldn't the state pay? Who has to pay your costs if you are judged not guilty? You. In an adversarial system, why should the defendant pay his costs if the state can't prove their case? Furthermore, why shouldn't the state have to compensate him for lost time and earning power if they wrongly convict him? The Constitution seems pretty clear to me. The burden is on the state, so why has it shifted so much to the accused?

why not have the defense lawyer pay? if he was truely innocent why didn't he do a better job getting him off?

The burden of proof is not on the defendant. A defendant doesn't even have to mount a defense! The job of the prosecution is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They did that, but lacked the essential element of guilt. What evidence was there in this case? That's what will have to be looked at before determining who made the mistake. Was the Defense Attorney a drunkard and an idiot? Was the Prosecutor malicious or hid evidence? Did the witness lie? Was it is a combination of those things? Was it none of those things?

All you can say is that the burden of PROOF lies on the State of Texas. They are the ones that have to "prove" his guilt. I don't care if they got bad evidence or not. They committed a wrong against this man, and 250k is a pittance for 18 years. I don't see why people are always so pro-State on here. If a citizen got bad advice on the legality of a business venture, not a single person would have any sympathy for them if they were arrested. You all would say "ignorance doesn't excuse you from the law." I agree with that. Ignorance, mishandling of a case, or bad circumstances don't excuse a State from imprisoning an innoncent man for 18 years either. And fvck the whole idea of sovereignty preventing lawsuts. That's just asking for a governmental abuse of power.

apparently the prosecution did a good enough job to put him in there. the idea of not presenting a defense is interesting, but not one i'd go with.

250k is a good start as opposed to spending the rest of your life in prison had this new DNA evidence not come up.

oh and i completely forgot what we're discussing.

I'm just telling you who the burden is on. They fvcked up, and I think they should have to pay for it. If a citizen commits a crime by accident they still end up liable for it. What's wrong with holding the government to the same standard it holds us to?

the problem is that it's going to come out of your pocket and mine. if it was TRUELY coming out of government spending then hey, go for it. but reality is that taxes will be raised to compensate for it. why not just come knock on my door with a bucket and a donations sign?

Quit listening to Boortz. It may come out of my pocket, but it was going to anyway since the guy was in JAIL. We were already paying for his upkeep. It is sad, but if the state messes up we pay for it. That's just a truth in life. So if some poor schmuck gets fcked over I guess raise my property tax. It is fair.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: wvtalbot
250k? for 18 years? Gotta love the Texas Justice system

Thats less than $14k per year, sucks actually

That whats I meant, this guy should be able to sue for millions.

Why?

How much is 18 years of YOUR life worth?

But who is he going to sue? 😕

I mean, he was convicted on the best evidence available at the time. The trial was deemed to be fair and just - but wrong. Are you gonna sue the judge? The jurors? The "witness" who picked him from the line-up? Or just arbitrarily sue "Texas" because you were wronged?

I agree that it's a ****** situation, but I don't get what "Sue 'em!" will accomplish.

I'll bite. The prosecution. There's an ethical and moral reason behind the idea that you are sure the individual you are prosecuting is guilty. Just because you *can* convince a jury that the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean you ignore your own good judgment and sense. We have an adversarial system. The burden is not on the defendant to prove his innocence, but for the state to prove his guilt. The state proved his guilt. Only problem was that he was not guilty. They erred. It doesn't matter if it was not foreseeable, but they did, and they should be punished.

Why are citizens held to a higher standard of proof and morals than the government? There should be equivalency. No one knows the facts of a case, but the general rule is that a prosecutor doesn't prosecute unless they are 100% certain in their gut and mind that the person is guilty. Who pays the cost? The state.

Why shouldn't the state pay? Who has to pay your costs if you are judged not guilty? You. In an adversarial system, why should the defendant pay his costs if the state can't prove their case? Furthermore, why shouldn't the state have to compensate him for lost time and earning power if they wrongly convict him? The Constitution seems pretty clear to me. The burden is on the state, so why has it shifted so much to the accused?

why not have the defense lawyer pay? if he was truely innocent why didn't he do a better job getting him off?

The burden of proof is not on the defendant. A defendant doesn't even have to mount a defense! The job of the prosecution is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They did that, but lacked the essential element of guilt. What evidence was there in this case? That's what will have to be looked at before determining who made the mistake. Was the Defense Attorney a drunkard and an idiot? Was the Prosecutor malicious or hid evidence? Did the witness lie? Was it is a combination of those things? Was it none of those things?

All you can say is that the burden of PROOF lies on the State of Texas. They are the ones that have to "prove" his guilt. I don't care if they got bad evidence or not. They committed a wrong against this man, and 250k is a pittance for 18 years. I don't see why people are always so pro-State on here. If a citizen got bad advice on the legality of a business venture, not a single person would have any sympathy for them if they were arrested. You all would say "ignorance doesn't excuse you from the law." I agree with that. Ignorance, mishandling of a case, or bad circumstances don't excuse a State from imprisoning an innoncent man for 18 years either. And fvck the whole idea of sovereignty preventing lawsuts. That's just asking for a governmental abuse of power.

apparently the prosecution did a good enough job to put him in there. the idea of not presenting a defense is interesting, but not one i'd go with.

250k is a good start as opposed to spending the rest of your life in prison had this new DNA evidence not come up.

oh and i completely forgot what we're discussing.

I'm just telling you who the burden is on. They fvcked up, and I think they should have to pay for it. If a citizen commits a crime by accident they still end up liable for it. What's wrong with holding the government to the same standard it holds us to?

the problem is that it's going to come out of your pocket and mine. if it was TRUELY coming out of government spending then hey, go for it. but reality is that taxes will be raised to compensate for it. why not just come knock on my door with a bucket and a donations sign?

Quit listening to Boortz. It may come out of my pocket, but it was going to anyway since the guy was in JAIL. We were already paying for his upkeep. It is sad, but if the state messes up we pay for it. That's just a truth in life. So if some poor schmuck gets fcked over I guess raise my property tax. It is fair.

boortz angers me way too much to listen to him. and sorry i'm not willingly giving up even more money because of one wrong conviction.

 

[ryan256]

Originally posted by: josh0099
I think a good amount for someone like this would be $10,000 untaxed and it goes up by $10,00 each year. So 1st year of jail time would be $10,000, then the 2nd would be $20,000 making a total of $30,000 payed for 2 years unjust.

Hmm... in this guys case that would come to $1.7M. About $95k per year. Personally I think appropriate compensation would be a tax exempt 30k per year which would total $540k.

 

[SirChadwick]

Takin it up the chocolate starfish for 18 years deserves just a bit more than 250k.
As a matter of fact no amount of money will justify the wrong accusation that ruined this mans life.

 

[SokaMoka]

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: wvtalbot

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: wvtalbot
250k? for 18 years? Gotta love the Texas Justice system

Thats less than $14k per year, sucks actually

That whats I meant, this guy should be able to sue for millions.

Why?

How much is 18 years of YOUR life worth?

YA RLY?