In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, we have several instances of miscarriages of justice, or near-miscarriages. Justine is put to death for murdering William, on the basis of incriminating evidence that Victor Frankenstein and the readers know to be false. Later, Victor is almost convicted of murdering his friend Henri Clerval, again because the evidence is misleading.
Here in the US, Troy Davis is scheduled to be executed this month. He has been convicted of a murder that took place in 1991, but in the meantime 7 of the 9 witnesses have recanted or significantly changed their story. There is significant doubt about his guilt. Forbes Magazine, not really a radical leftwing publication, talks about the "innocence of Troy Davis."
This article is very upsetting. It is a shame that Troy Davis will be put to death because of witnesses being coerced by the police to get the outcome they are looking for. Sadly, this happens far to often in our legal system, and innocent people are put to death or jailed for crimes they did not commit.
ReplyDeleteJudges like to convict people with solid evidence to back them up, but sometimes that is not always possible. Circumstantial evidence is relied on too much, as is seen in the case of Troy Davis and in Frankenstein. If the judges had not relied on the circumstantial evidence in the book, Justine would not have been convicted of murdering William, and Victor may not have been a suspect at all. Something needs to be done to help the innocent.
Consider also that judges who are "tough on crime" are often more popular and more likely to be elected. The ideal is that having a judge of this mentality would be safer for people, keeping criminals off the street. The truth is that innocent people can become scapegoats, being convicted on shaky evidence for a crime they did not commit. In order to properly deliver justice to Troy Davis and others like him, we must be willing to accept that sometimes we don't catch the bad guys. It should not mean that we punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this is an upsetting article. It definitely highlights the weaknesses of the judicial system as well as the inherent flaws of humans. While eyewitness accounts seem like a reasonable form of proof, it is apparent that it is not always correct. People can easily lie to avoid their own legal misdoings or be coerced into accusing someone of something by the police. The "eyewitnesses" were also primed by the police, having seen pictures of Davis before picking him out of the line-up. Additionally, people tend to have an overconfidence barrier believing they are more accurate in their judgements than they really are. On the other hand, eyewitness account may be the most condemning evidence and may be truthful, making it hard to discount.
ReplyDeleteThe law states someone should not convicted unless they are sure beyond a shadow of a doubt which does not seem like the case here. Recently Casey Anthony was acquitted of murder in the death of her daughter Caylee because she was not guilty "beyond a shadow of a doubt." Many people were upset over this non-conviction as MANY believed she was guilty. So regardless of the law, I think there will always be slip-ups in the judicial system.
This article upsets me in so many different ways, but the line that gets to me the most is the way the judge demanded proof that Troy Davis was innocent; it was as if he sent the message that in this country, it is no longer a matter of "innocent until proven guilty," but "guilty until proven innocent." With exceptions, of course...
ReplyDeleteI noticed Taylor made a comment about Casey Anthony and how she was acquitted because of the doubt to her guilt. In the articles posted on the blog, primarily the most recent editorial, there is a commentary about race. Casey Anthony was a white woman accused of killing her daughter, and Troy Davis is a black man accused of killing a white police officer.
It truly bothers me that (regardless of if this statement is true or not) we still feel the necessity to make those statements today. I draw the parallel here because it seems that race may have played a factor in this case the way gender played a role in Justine's - not something that anyone would outright address, but something that is wrong and needs to change.
I think this is horrible. An innocent man getting killed over something that doesn't really have enough evidence to convict him in the first place. Unfortunately he is not the first innocent person to be incarcerated or put to death for a crime he did not commit. I think it's also terrible that dectectives throughout time have forced a cofession out of somebody who is generally just nervous and scarred. Just like in the case of Justine. They really didn't have any evidence of her killing William, but they weren't willing to say that they screwed up. I agree with Taylor that we will definitely always have these flaws in our judicial system.
ReplyDelete