|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: GEN: 60 Minutes tonightFrom: Dean Huffman (dean@thehuffpeople.net)Wed Mar 6 04:54:11 2002
I think it is a general rule that "justice" is not what prosecuting attorneys are interested in. They are interested in "winning" (and re-election or election to a higher office). A few years ago in Illinois there was the case (I cannot remember the name) where the prosecution knew that the defendant had not done the crime, but they prosecuted the case anyway. The defendant (who, I am sure, was no angel, but that is not relevant) spent a number of years on death row and came within a day of execution. He was later exonerated. A case was brought against the prosecutors for fraudulent prosecution, but it went nowhere. What happened to those on the prosecution team? One is a judge. Another is running for governor of Illinois. How about all of those convictions that are being overturned by examination of DNA evidence? There was a case in Battle Creek, Michigan, recently where the case could have been overturned but, if you believe the reports (I believe them), the prosecutors had the DNA evidence destroyed before it could be tested, thereby removing all chances that the defendant could be exonerated, but, more importantly, removing all chances that the prosecution could have been shown to be wrong! It appears that they were more interested in maintaining their conviction (and reputation) than seeing "justice" done. If you ever want to see something really chilling, rent the movie "The Thin Blue Line". In Dallas there was a great deal of pressure to convict (and give the death penalty) to a "cop killer". Although the prosecution knew who committed the murder, the individual was under age and could not receive the death penalty. Therefore they went after somebody else that they knew to be innocent, but who was nevertheless eligible for the death penalty. He was found guilty and put on death row. He was later exonerated. I found the documentary to be really eye opening and the situation to be really discussing. A few years ago I served on a jury in a forgery case. Interestingly, there was also a lawyer on the jury with me. The prosecution did a deplorable job. Now the defendant may well have done what he was accused of doing, but the prosecution came nowhere near "reasonable doubt". I wondered whether, being the only holdout on the case, I would stand my ground and hang the jury or whether I would give in and vote with everybody else for conviction. As predicted, the initial vote was 11 - 1. However, much to my surprise, it was 11 - 1 in favor of "not guilty". After delaying long enough for the county to buy us lunch, we voted again 12 - 0 for not guilty. I guess this is getting off topic. However, I think the take home message is that a prosecuting attorney can have an agenda as much as anybody else. The jury really should be skeptical of everything the prosecution says and really should make them prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. - - - -
At 07:31 AM 3/4/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>chilling - especially the prosecution's failure to notify the defense
|
|
Return to
|
Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Mon Nov 2 04:51:09 2009 |
The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.