exibit A on why the DP should be repealed

Three rapes are now unsolved crimes, and the perpetrator (or perpetrators) has never been charged, never been tried, never served a minute in jail.

Every wrongly convicted person leaves an unpunished perpetrator.

But of course if we deplore prosecutorial misconduct, that means we want all criminals everywhere to get away with it. The transitive property as applied to military and law enforcement.

time for other crimes for which he was correctly apprehended and prosecuted.

Wasn't it nice of the Dallas County prosecutor to screw up and allow him to continue raping women? I wonder how those later victims feel about that?

about it. I meant only to suggest that serial rapists don't usually curtail their behavior until they are either apprehended, die or are otherwise incapacitated, based on what I know. If this serial rapist held true to form, there's at least a possibility that he was apprehended at some point for a different offense.

The thing that makes me most sad about this story, aside from the fact that Mr. Wyatt essentially paid with his life for a prosecutor's zeal, is that women who have been victims of rape or sexual assault may feel still more reluctance to come forward. Between this story and the Rolling Stone UVA screw-up, rape victims are being forced to deal with a society doubting their ordeals even more. That is really something that bugs the fuck out of me.

similar crimes for 31 years, never being apprehended.

Wouldn't it be better to be able to say I got it right instead of I got a conviction?

Perhaps we should set a limit, 3 innocent people in jail and you get to take their place for a year... right next to all the rest of the people you put in there.

The first response is to say that that is what judges and juries are for.

I think the adversarial model of trial is probably better than the inquisitorial model you're advocating.

What arguably *should* be changed in the USA, though, is reducing the prosecutor's ability to control things like plea bargains, and giving he judge more influence.



The second response is to point out that (with rare, corrupt exceptions) prosecutors only take cases to trial when they're pretty certain the person they're prosecuting is guilty. Prosecutors hate losing cases, and if they're not confident that the evidence proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, they're unlikely to move forwards.

... prosecutors are OFTEN wrong and the entire trial is stacked against the defendant, who is typically represented by an overworked and not that infrequently incompetent defender who is like a pea shooter going up against a cannon.

The more cynical version of myself would claim the prosecutor really doesn't care about who committed the crime, but only that there is a conviction (this is demonstrably true in some cases) and as usual those who are responsible for throwing innocent people in jail for WHATEVER reason have no negative consequence unless they happen to have a conscience which is not always the case.

And lastly, someone try to make the argument that these 3 witnesses were not coached. Not a chance, they were told "this is the guy" and they went along. Textbook.

they want a "slam dunk" and aren't satisfied that there's enough evidence to charge anyone. That's why there are so many cold cases piled up with the likely guilty person never getting charged though sometimes they do years and years later when a new prosecutor comes on that police can convince to revisit an old case.

Our justice system is already incredibly one-sided with all the advantages for the accused. Meanwhile victims of crimes are excluded from the system because all crimes are against the state and not the individual. That's why prosecutors not only don't have to consult victims when making plea deals they don't even have to tell them. Frankly, I hate the concept of plea deals.

There are FAR FAR FAR more guilty people walking around free than innocent people in jail given that enough evidence isn't found, enough evidence isn't found that's satisfactory for prosecutors that always want "slam dunks", that were never reported to begin with, that guilty people walked away from given the high standard of finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.

Then there is also the fact that defense attorneys can be purchased rather then all of them working for the state like prosecutors are. It's abundantly apparent that if one can afford the best defense counsel they aren't even close to the same likelihood of getting convicted as the person that for lack of money has to use the state defense attorneys who are so underpaid and overworked most of their cases they don't even GET until the day before or even the day OF trial.

While prosecutors don't want to touch a case that isn't a "slam dunk" defense attorneys almost always defend the guilty and are thrilled when they win by putting a criminal back on the street especially when they get a huge pile of money for it.

innocent person to be jailed can be for another time.

This:

does not lie.

But this was in 1980, when it wasn't.

Actually, though, DNA can be misinterpreted and can produce false positives--it's just not very likely except in exceptional circumstances.

However, once guilt's established as a fact, most of the wrangling on appeal then becomes legal and not factual.

We already do just fine having qualified medical personnel doing the rape kit. The far larger problem these days is that they sit on the shelf for sometimes years before being tested. Apparently, no one cares very much about doing rape kit testing in a timely manner like the do testing evidence for other crimes.

There's also the problem of women not reporting the rape immediately or at all and showering before being tested which is entirely understandable but doesn't yield necessary evidence.

It won't make up for lost time, but maybe it can give him a head start on a new life.

31 years stolen from a mans life. Happy he's out and furious this happens so often. No way to compensate anyone for that but I hope he got millions (anyone know).

I'd be cool with keeping the death penalty for corrupt prosecutors and LE who rob others of their freedom and lives.

Very disturbing about the witnesses. Did they lie or actually believe he was the one? One thing is fore sure, eye witnesses are NOT reliable - unbelievable as that seems for victims who have been physically assaulted and looked at the perps but true.

Especially if the witness is identifying somebody of a different race. I don't know if that's the case in this instance as I don't know the race of the victim or the man just released. But as the link below shows, even if the witness is identifying somebody of the same race, they are still only right 2 out of 3 times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_effect

So my guess is that the victims didn't lie, but were mistaken.

as a polygraph. That would flip most people out, I know.

DNA tests should be mandatory---at the state's expense---in all such cases!

The prosecutors and police won't see a day in jail for withholding evidence that would have acquitted Wyatt. His daughter was 3 years old when he was arrested, now he's holding his grand baby. This is one shitty 'justice' system...