When discussing the death penalty in class the other day, we listed numerous reasons why the death penalty is ineffective and a violation of human rights. One of the most intriguing to me what the "corruption" or lack of training for lawyers regarding capital offense trials. Professor Kohen remarked that up until very recently, lawyers needed no special training when it came to defending and prosecuting capital offenses. While reading the Omaha World Herald this morning, I stumbled upon this article:
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100404/NEWS0802/704049983#jacob-sullum-a-disappearing-bloodstain
In this article the columnist tells the story of John Thompson, a man who served 18 years in the Louisiana prison system for a crime he did not commit. There were a simple piece of evidence that could clear him of his crimes ( I will let you read the article to find that piece of evidence), however, the prosecution held that information and convicted Thompson of a crime he did not commit. This article shows that the lawyers who were prosecuting Thompson were looking for the easy conviction, especially on a high profile case. They were willing to hide the one piece of evidence that would clear this man, to ensure they got a conviction.
Read the article and let me know: What would you do to reform the legal system? Do you think the prosecutors hid the piece of evidence or simply did not know they had to disclose it to the defense?
Monday, April 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the prosecutors hid the evidence. Even without a lawyer's training it is apparent that it was wrong to withhold evidence. If I was telling a story and found out something that fundamentally disproved the story, I would know that it would be wrong to continue telling it, especially if i was trying to convince others of its' truth. "Deliberate indifference" seems to be a somewhat paradoxical term.If the courts are in place to ensure justice, then all whom they employ must realize that truth is a critical part of justice.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how I would reform the legal system. I think there is pressure in our society to preserve ideals that differ very much from reality. I think if it was more widely recognized that there is a lot of good and bad in everything, including large institutions like religion and government, then people would have space to act better. (I suppose this does not happen partially because people want to believe whatever they support or are a part of is GOOD.) They would not feel so much that they have to do things to preserve an image and sacrifice the substance of whatever they represent in the mean time. You said that this was a high profile case and prosecutors were, " looking for the easy conviction". People wanted a sense of security quick. The product, obviously, was greatly compromised. ( By the pressure for only good things, victory, self righteousness,we say "that is unimportant." And by not being informed of what is happening in our communities, in our country we are willing to gamble with justice in this way. Truth is less important than feeling.) Providing a false sense of security through unstable and often unjust means serves to no one's benefit. The Catholic Church and the pope are in a similar situation. They worked so hard to preserve the reputation of the church, while all the repressed abuses that exactly contradict all the church "stands for" festered and damaged the structure in ways that make it very difficult to move forward either in pretension or practicality. Supporting this dishonesty of image hurts integrity. Accepting things as they are and moving from there can be accomplish things, but I do not see how operating from false pretenses can.
I think the prosecutors intentionally hid the evidence from the trial. Think of the Norfolk, NE bank killings and if the general public there would have accepted anything less than the death penalty for the killers. Obviously, the Norfolk killers were clearly guilty, but I imagine the over-whelming want for the death penalty might have been present in Louisiana.
ReplyDeleteAlso I am hesitant if reform is really needed or if the cities/states need to just implement the current laws that are already in place. I think, though, recent legislation, by some states, that requires DNA testing to be presented in capital cases is a good start to some judicial reform. Other than that one, however, I am also unsure what could help with the judicial problems.