Taking Responsibilty

[Guest Warwick Green]

Boxer Hilton still denies assaulting daughters

'I'll never give up until I'm acquitted'

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...c185af9&k=94382

He will be taking counselling during his parole which he looks on as a waste of time.

Meanwhile there is Chuck Guité who defrauded the public of millions of dollars but who doesn't think he did anything wrong.

Or Colin Thatcher, let out of prison even though he still claims he did not kill his wife.

These people are not like Jean-Guy Morin, Donald Marshall and others who were through subsequent investigation and evidence were later found not guily.

These are criminals who won't acknowledge and take responsibility for their crimes.

[Charles Anthony]

Objectively, explain the difference between these two groups:

Chuck Guité, Colin Thatcher

and

Guy-Paul Morin, Donald Marshall

to an outsider who has never heard of any of them.

The only difference that I see involves hindsight.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Objectively, explain the difference between these two groups:

Chuck Guité, Colin Thatcher

and

Guy-Paul Morin, Donald Marshall

to an outsider who has never heard of any of them.

The only difference that I see involves hindsight.

Marshall and Morin were released after evidence came to light while they were in prison demonstrating their innocence. They were then released. No such evidence has been produced with respect to Thatcher. As for Guité there is not even a claim from him that it's a case of mistaken identity; ie, that some other dude was actually running the sponsorship program. And Hilton's daughters have published a book about their experiences of sexual abuse at the hands of their father.

[Charles Anthony]

The distressing thing is that Morin and Marshall spent extensive amounts of time incarcerated. Nobody (except their mothers) believed their claims of innocence for a long time. In a practical sense, they were assumed guilty until proven innocent.

I throw out the following questions on the topic:

If the same justice system that yields convictions of Guité, Thatcher and Hilton as it did for Marshall, Morin, Truscott and Milgard (just to name a few!), how can you and I have any trust or faith in said justice system??? I find it difficult.

If we support our falible justice system, what responsibility do we have to the wrongfully accused? I think we have a lot of responsibility.

Is it even possible to correct miscarriages of justice such as Marshall, Morin, Truscott and Milgard? I think we can not. I think the only thing that we can do is tighten up our standards of "burden of proof" in their honor.

I adamantly believe that convicting (and incarcerating or punishing) an innocent person is a horrifying and disgraceful act of violence.

[MightyAC]

The distressing thing is that Morin and Marshall spent extensive amounts of time incarcerated. Nobody (except their mothers) believed their claims of innocence for a long time. In a practical sense, they were assumed guilty until proven innocent.

I throw out the following questions on the topic:

If the same justice system that yields convictions of Guité, Thatcher and Hilton as it did for Marshall, Morin, Truscott and Milgard (just to name a few!), how can you and I have any trust or faith in said justice system??? I find it difficult.

If we support our falible justice system, what responsibility do we have to the wrongfully accused? I think we have a lot of responsibility.

Is it even possible to correct miscarriages of justice such as Marshall, Morin, Truscott and Milgard? I think we can not. I think the only thing that we can do is tighten up our standards of "burden of proof" in their honor.

I adamantly believe that convicting (and incarcerating or punishing) an innocent person is a horrifying and disgraceful act of violence.

I don't really have an answer to your question, except to say it is a flawed system of justice yet it is still one of the best in the world. The only solution is Kaizen... a Japanese word meaning something like "continuous incremental improvement".

I completely agree that it is horrifying that we convict the innocent. Take the Truscott case for example. I can’t imagine loosing 47 years of my life due to a false conviction and a police force desperate to make an arrest and possibly protect the reputation of a military base.

Considering the risk of false conviction can anyone tell me why there are still people that believe in the death penalty?

[newbie]

Considering the risk of false conviction can anyone tell me why there are still people that believe in the death penalty?

It's called revenge or "somebody's gotta pay.'"

[Charles Anthony]

Considering the risk of false conviction can anyone tell me why there are still people that believe in the death penalty?

It's called revenge or "somebody's gotta pay.'"

I believe that is part of it.

I get the sense that when there is a murder, people become blind to reason and sadly, become monstrosly aggressive themselves as a result. That is why we see ridiculous innocent convictions with no evidence such as the West Memphis Three to name one example. I treat justice officials who blatantly convict innocent people as being more guilty of the crime than the true perpetrator.

Some people believe in the death penalty out of principle: it would be a dishonor to the victim if the culprit's punishment was not equal to the victim's fate. People believe that the principle should stand despite errors (or wrongful convictions!) and it is our responsibility to ONLY serve the death penalty when there is irrefutable evidence (whatever that is??) and NEVER when a conviction is based on circumstancial evidence.

My opinion is that I do not think we should convict ANYBODY of any crime with just circumstantial evidence -- but that is just me.

Also, it does not make sense to automatically conclude that death is a more severe punishment than life imprisonment for everybody. That is why I think it was excellent that Moussaoui did not get the death penalty. He seemed to want it. The death penalty would have made him the martyr that he wanted to be (I am presuming) and thus would not have been punishment.

I am a firm (and extreme) believer that it is better to let ten guilty men go free instead of one innocent man be convicted.

The other thing that I believe very few people consider is that criminals should be studied. We should make an effort to preserve criminals for the sake of learning how to possibly prevent raising criminal minds. I do not believe that people are born evil. I believe there is something that triggers it and we would be wise to study them.

[Guest Warwick Green]

The distressing thing is that Morin and Marshall spent extensive amounts of time incarcerated. Nobody (except their mothers) believed their claims of innocence for a long time. In a practical sense, they were assumed guilty until proven innocent.

Morin was found not guilty in his first trial. The Crown appealed, a new trial ordered and then he was found guilty. He was in prison for about six years before it was established that he was innocent. This could not have happened in the US where the prosecution cannot appeal a not guilty verdict.

[Charles Anthony]

The Crown appealed, a new trial ordered and then he was found guilty. He was in prison for about six years before it was established that he was innocent.

What do you think was motivating the prosecution?

[Guest Warwick Green]

The Crown appealed, a new trial ordered and then he was found guilty. He was in prison for about six years before it was established that he was innocent.

What do you think was motivating the prosecution?

Get a conviction - withold exculpatory evidence. Same thing happened with Marshall and David Milgaard.

[Charles Anthony]

- withold exculpatory evidence.

If that can be proven, do you think the tables should be turned? such that the prosecution should be held accountable?

I think they should suffer the same penalty they sought for their accused -- again with the caveat that it can be proven.

[MightyAC]

Also, it does not make sense to automatically conclude that death is a more severe punishment than life imprisonment for everybody.

I agree. Life imprisonment without chance of parole seems like more of a punishment than death to me. I would much rather a criminal rot away in a little box forever than be allowed a quick and painless exit. Also, after all appeals are exhausted it is just as expensive to kill someone as to keep them locked up. Plus, as horrible as it is that we lock up innocent people at least we have a chance to catch the mistake and make partial ammends if they are still alive.

[Guest Warwick Green]

- withold exculpatory evidence.

If that can be proven, do you think the tables should be turned? such that the prosecution should be held accountable?

I think they should suffer the same penalty they sought for their accused -- again with the caveat that it can be proven.

The police officers and prosecutors involved should be charged with criminal activity if they deliberately witheld evidence resulting in a guilty rather than a not-guilty verdict.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Another vote of no-confidence in the judicial sytem

Inquiry assails 'tunnel vision' in N.L.'s justice system

The Newfoundland and Labrador government is launching an independent review of the public prosecutions office after a judicial inquiry accused it and the police of fostering a culture of "tunnel vision" in investigations.

Former Supreme Court justice Antonio Lamer was hired in 2003 by N.L. to look into three contentious murder cases. Antonio Lamer, a former Supreme Court of Canada justice who reviewed three murder cases that the province admitted were miscarriages of justice, blamed that tunnel vision for problems in how at least two of the cases were handled.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...rt06212006.html

[Charles Anthony]

I am putting this here even though the thread is poorly titled.

This lady had her second child taken away from her and put up for adoption.

Accused welcome inquiry into Ontario pathologist's work

A review of the pathologist’s cases between 1981 and 1991 is now being undertaken by the coroner’s office.

Mullins-Johnson was released last year following the discovery of evidence that indicated Smith had lost tissue samples capable of showing the child died of natural causes.

“Something has to be done. This guy [smith] has to be held accountable,” Mullins-Johnson said Monday at the press conference, where he sat beside Sherret. “People still look at us as child killers.”

Lockyer said that by the late 1990s, when Sherret’s son died, Smith was “habitually presenting himself as the leading pediatric pathologist in the country and really, implying he may be the leading pediatric pathologist on the continent.

“Having read many, many transcripts of his evidence, I will say that he was an extremely adept witness and a very convincing witness. He didn’t just convince juries … a lot of defence lawyers caved into his opinions and allowed or indeed advised their clients to very often accept guilty pleas to less serious crimes than those they were charged with."

National Post

Woman convicted of infanticide allowed to appeal

TORONTO -- Ontario's chief Crown prosecutor has given a woman convicted of killing her infant son permission to take her case to the Court of Appeal.

---

An expert review panel questioned the findings of the original pathologist in Sherrett's case, and the government has called a public inquiry into the work of Dr. Charles Smith.

Bryant says the Crown today also agreed to support a bail application for Marco Trotta, who was convicted of second-degree murder in 1998 for the death of his infant son.

CTV.ca

This is a horrifying travesty of justice. Taking children away from their parents can be devastating, in my opinion. Her other children will grow up knowing that they were wrongly taken away from their parents by the state and the state was wrong. They will also grow up knowing that there is no way of correcting the wrongdoing or to make anybody accountable.

[Figleaf]

...

How is 'Warwick Green' able to post whilst unregistered??

[Figleaf]

Objectively, explain the difference between these two groups:

Chuck Guité, Colin Thatcher

and

Guy-Paul Morin, Donald Marshall

to an outsider who has never heard of any of them.

The only difference that I see involves hindsight.

FYI, Guy-Paul Morin and Donald Marshall were wrongfully convicted and later vindicated. The other two have been convicted and not vindicated

[Figleaf]

If the same justice system that yields convictions of Guité, Thatcher and Hilton as it did for Marshall, Morin, Truscott and Milgard (just to name a few!), how can you and I have any trust or faith in said justice system??? I find it difficult.

Ah, okay, I see what you're getting at now. On the other side of that coin there are those who seem to get away with seemingly obvious criminal actions.

Is it even possible to correct miscarriages of justice such as Marshall, Morin, Truscott and Milgard? I think we can not. I think the only thing that we can do is tighten up our standards of "burden of proof" in their honor.

I think we should start imposing at least professional discipline on prosecutors, police, and medical examiners who are shown to have contrived wrongful convictions. If I had my druthers, they'd go to jail, but professional discipline would be a start.

I adamantly believe that convicting (and incarcerating or punishing) an innocent person is a horrifying and disgraceful act of violence.

I agree completely.

[FTA Lawyer]

The best way to avoid these problems is a well-trained and well-funded defence lawyer...he / she is the front line of protection against wrongful conviction. My job is to demonstrate the tunnel-vision, dissect the junk science, uncover the prosecutorial or police misconduct.

Unfortunately, too many people who spew righteous indignation about wrongful convictions are not willing to stand up for defence lawyers or to commit new funding to Legal Aid.

A Legal Aid lawyer getting $600.00 to run a trial is hardly going to be able to provide the same level of "justice" that the O.J. Simpson's of the world can afford.

FTA

[Greg]

How is 'Warwick Green' able to post whilst unregistered??

His account was accidentally removed awhile back. These posts predate his account removal.

[Figleaf]

How is 'Warwick Green' able to post whilst unregistered??

His account was accidentally removed awhile back. These posts predate his account removal.

Ah I see, thank you.