The DNA got him released in the end but it's not the problem with the system since there are cases with no DNA evidence in which people are wrongfully convicted the exact same way he was. Here is a summary of what happened. He is a black. All blacks look alike and are criminals. Therefore he is guilty. This is what went wrong and needs to be fixed, just as with an airplane that leaks fuel and isn't detected because of a faulty fuel readout, the answer isn't to carry more fuel.
Here are some things that are broken.
1. There is a presumption of guilt.
2. Prosecutors are interested in their kill ratio, not justice.
3. Judges are interested in arbitrary exercise of power, not justice.
4. It is very rare to find a public defender who diligently defends the interest of the defense. Public defenders work with the prosecution to get the case through the system.
5. In some jurisdictions elected judges don't need to have law backgrounds, or have demonstrated any competence or knowledge of the law.
6. The prison system is about punishment and exercise of power, not rehabilitation.
1) Agree: Presumption of guilt is definitely a problem. I would assume we could blame prejudices, arrogance (over confidence in pre-judging), or profession apathy for this.
2) Disagree: Prosecutors only caring about their kill ratio is a plus to me. This is what they should be doing. If they slack in any way because they think the accused might be innocent they are taking away the power of decision from the judge or the jury.
3) Wha?: Judges only care about exercising power? This seems like a blanket statement, like an absolute, which are typically wrong.
4) Agree: I would guess that this is the sad consequence of the talent going where the money is. In some states lawyers are required to do X amount of pro bono cases a year. I am sure this helps but maybe there is something else we could do.
5) ?: Do you have examples of this for Judges that oversee criminal court proceedings?
> 2) Disagree: Prosecutors only caring about their kill ratio is a
> plus to me. This is what they should be doing. If they slack in
> any way because they think the accused might be innocent they
> are taking away the power of decision from the judge or the jury.
What about the prosecutors that do things like test the limits of laws just so that they can be 'tough on crime.' Example are: prosecuting people under wiretap laws for filming the police, or prosecuting teenagers as child pornographers for sending nude images to each other through MMS.
Prosecuting people for filming the police has less to do with 'punishing criminals' and more to do with political posturing with the police force (i.e. you rub my back, I'll rub yours).
Prosecuting teens for 'sexting' is more about: 1) looking good with the locals for being 'tough on crime,' and 2) forcing the prosecutor's morals on other people (i.e. "I don't think that teens should be sexting, so I'll go all-out against them to show them that it's wrong, even of the punishment grossly outweighs the crime.").
> 3) Wha?: Judges only care about exercising power?
> This seems like a blanket statement, like an absolute,
> which are typically wrong.
Read the judges' decision in the teen sexting case in Florida that went to the state supreme court (I think that it was a state-level case and not a federal-level case, where Florida was just were the Xth Federal District Court is located...).
For #2, you have them doing things like hiding exculpatory evidence. I don't think that's what they should be doing. If they find something that proves a guy innocent (e.g. they do a DNA analysis that excludes the suspect), they have no right to hide it just to get a conviction.
For #3, I tend to agree with you, but there are a handful of hang 'em judges out there.
For #5, I don't have any examples because that happens only in a handful of states and the people who appoint the judges usually have more sense than to appoint someone absurd. That said, Supreme Court appointments only require Presidential approval and Congress' consent to the choice. There has been a justice or two that wasn't exactly a highly regarded legal mind, but with the appointments being so contentious these days, in practice, they tend to appoint people with auspicious pedigrees.
DNA evidence should not be used as the sole basis for a conviction. From what I gather, DNA collection and processing is still done on an ad-hoc basis, with no standards and auditing.
But that's sort of how most things work though. The positive, good outcomes are sort of incidental (though hopefully intentional) side effects of a complex system of incentives that are usually not perfectly aligned.
ie, why does Exxon Mobil drill oil? Because they sincerely truly love that black stuff? No because they want to make money.
The system could probably be improved with good economic analysis, but just because the incentives are misaligned does not mean they're broken.
> Well, the change that prevents this from happening again is DNA evidence.
This is the very optimistic interpretation - another tool and a permanent reduction in the wrongful conviction rate. The pessimistic interpretation is that DNA tests served as a short-term oracle where the system nigh-magically was stripped naked and its true past error rate laid bare, but to which the system will slowly adapt and figure out how to circumvent.
We can probably expect in a few decades to start seeing articles about how DNA evidence gets lost, misinterpreted, planted (remember OJ and the issues with the blood evidence? more than a few police have no issues with framing a guilty man, it seems), and other such strategies that are not obvious to people outside the system.
In other words, if there were suddenly another nigh-magical breakthrough which gave us a second look at true error rates, we would see, superimposed on whatever other trends are going on, a dip in the '80s-'90s and then a slow increase to whenever the second breakthrough's innocence projects got going.
Unfortunately, this is a very long-term prediction and there may never again be a breakthrough as dramatic as DNA testing which would give us the second oracle, so who knows if time will let us distinguish between the optimistic and pessimistic interpretations.
I think you need to go see how DNA evidence is actually used. CSI is not remotely like what goes on, forensics is not any kind of science it's just a kind of "best practices" from cops.
Definitely the human factors that caused this will still complicate things, but at least the most egregious kinds of cases can be prevented.