|
OK... I'm open to being educated, but how many of those "exonerated" by DNA evidence are actually guilty nonetheless? Just because a defense attorney can convince a judge/jury/prosecutor that his client's DNA was not present, or the sample was tainted, or there was other evidence, doesn't mean the "client" didn't commit the rape.
There will always be those wrongfully convicted of crimes and that's a sad reality, but I'd guess (just a guess) that the majority of cases taken up by the Innocence Project involve a guilty party and that party is sometimes set free due to some technicality. Not to say that they don't occasionally manage to free an innocent party, but I'm skeptical.
Some suspect every conviction, some think the jury usually gets it right (or at least requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt)... I'm of the latter mind set.
__________________
grym
|