My blog title: “Justice Delayed”, has never been more apt. However, the Washington Innocence Project is now working on the case and seeking forensic evidence from the prosecutors that is relevant to the wrongful convictions. Truly, there is no reason for the unconscionable length of time this process takes, just as there is no reason for appeals to drag on for a decade. Actually, there is a reason. People who administer criminal justice are reluctant to produce evidence that just might exonerate defendants.
As in this case, they will tell you that they never want to see innocent people spend one more day in prison and, indeed, they may mean what they say. They will also tell you that the particular case you are trying to have overturned is solid or safe or whatever else means open and shut. They have convinced themselves of this, so they are being honest. Are they surprised or humbled when DNA evidence proves otherwise? Not usually. They will attribute the error to someone else or to human imperfection and sometimes give their apologies. Sometimes they will still insist that the defendants are guilty.
I am interested to see where this stage leads.
But I do have one question: why is it so hard to get them to work with you if they are so intent on having the right person in prison? In a case where there is no forensic evidence against the defendants, as in Rafay/Burns, wouldn’t they want to be certain that DNA evidence does not implicate someone else?
If Justice admit that it can be wrong it has no authority. If justice made a mistake for one case, then any rulling can at anytime be challenge and the system will collapse. For Justice a wrongful life sentence will always be better than admitting a miscarage of justice.
I have a question. Since Mr Big technique have been ruled inconstitutionnel in Canada, have anybody advocate for a statute that oblige any conviction base on this technique to be retrial in the United States ? A new law is never mistake for justice it is just new justice.
Mr. Big is still legal in Canada but is restricted to cases where other solid evidence has been found. You’re also correct in that justice systems would rather have a wrongful conviction (where individual prosecutors face no consequences for malfeasance) than apologize for one.