Through the week there are several programs on about unsolved murders etc. American Justice, City and Confidential, are just to name a couple. Last night on TLC this man did (i think) 12 years for the murder of his wife. Leaving his 2 small daughters to be raised by the aunt. He tried off and on for years to get an attorney to take his case with an open mind. He wrote a 100 ish page letter on what happened that night.. The past attornays never even considered it into evidence.. He still maintained his inoccence throughout those years...At last he got one to listen to him, and believe in what he was sayen, was the truth..The wife had several bruises and seemed to have been straingled to death. He had a sorta mental break down.....In reality she had gotten a bowl of dry cereal to eat for a snack and choked on it.. There was no ceral found at the crime scene because a helpful neighbor had cleaned it up off the floor...(He had clamed she was dead when he got home)Anyway he finally made it to court and cam out with a ""Not Guilty Verdict""". He missed all those years with his daughters, and made it within 2 hours of one daughters high school graduation.Having missed from kindergarden on up...they say there are alot of innocent people doing time in prison for crimes they DID NOT COMMIT.........

Wendy, what a travesty for that fellow to miss nearly all of his children's growing up years, all by serving time for somehting he didn't do. That whole family paid an incalculable price emotionally and financially, and it will continue for the rest of their lives. Without a father in the home to help earn a living, etc... there were probably alot of things that family went without. Will the state that convicted him try to give any restitution to this man and his family?? Of course not! The ones who made the mistakes that convicted him and put him in prison in the beginning aren't held accountable for their mistakes. I cannot see any justice in that at all.

I am another avid viewer of the crime shows... not the drama ones, but the true investigations of real cases. I agree with you, Wendy, that there are probably more innocent people in our jails and prisons than we will ever know. The biggest problem with this is that law enforcement is just a bit TOO eager to be able to chalk up a victory in their 'win' column for 'solving the crime' and sending someone... anyone.... to jail. This makes them look good to have a high rate of convictions for the crimes in the area, and keeps people like the governors (and the voters) happy. Meanwhile... the innocent person sits in jail awaiting a hearing to see if he can be released pending trial. What does he get to eat while he is there? Here, they get a daily ration consisting of 4 slices of bread, 2 slices of bologna, a grapefruit and some non-descrept punch that tastes like drywall. Now, I am not saying that anyone should be eating like a 5 star resort guest while in jail, but I think this daily ration leaves alot to be desired... and it cuts pretty deep when you are innocent in the first place.

Getting caught up in the criminal courts and being innocent is something that is more of a nightmare for the innocent person than is evident on the surface. For instance.... if an innocent person is accused of a felony crime, that innocent person, even thought they are an upstanding adult citizen, cannot even pay for his own lawyer with anything but cash. No credit cards-period! Reason? The lawyer feels that if the person does get convicted, then the bill won't get paid. So, then what happens? The horror of being falsely accused now spreads to the family and friends of this accused person... it will be up to them (if the accused is lucky enough to have people love him/her enough to do this) to pay the thousands of dollars... up front... to the lawyer, or the lawyer won't take the case. (For drug felonies, this cost starts between $15K to $20K. I have no idea how much a murder defense would be.... but the sky is the limit on prices, depending on the experience of the lawyer and his track record.)

Public defenders are available at no cost, of course.... but, in most cases, you get what you pay for. The public defenders have far too many cases to spend more than very minimal time on any single case. I am personally familiar with a case where the public defender had never met the client, and wouldn't even return phone calls to this client, who was falsely accused of a felony! That is a pretty serious infraction, in my book... you have someone wrongfully accused in the first place, facing a prison sentence if convicted, without money to hire a lawyer, and the public defender won't even return calls? This is definitely one big factor in how we get so many innocent people convicted in the US. So, many people try to legally represent themselves... and for most people, it is impossible to know enough to do a reasonable job at this. Like the old saying.... The person who represents himself in a court of law has a fool for a client.

Once they start moving along through the courts, and a person pleads not guilty.... because they are 110% innocent of the entire ordeal.... then the courts have the nerve to try to PLEA BARGAIN before the trial to get an innocent person to 'just plead guilty' to a lesser charge for a lighter sentence. Excuse me? What part of 'INNOCENT' don't they understand? What ever happened to that 'innocent until proven guilty' thing that Americans have always thought they could rely on?

All the justice system is interested in is solving those cases rapidly, and getting someone behind bars. Too many law enforcement departments want the public to think that 'they always get their man/woman', and so anyone with a pulse will make them look good when the prison door slams shut. So what if the prisoner was innocent... the cops did their job, and I know that they keep track of the numbers here... crimes committed versus convictions. I think some of them are actually beyond caring, as long as it all looks good on paper.

This is a big nightmare for so many people, and it places some terrible emotional and financial burdens on the innocent person and their families.... and all because the police were too eager to handcuff someone and haul them in. I used to have the ultimate respect for law enforcement, and I still am a firm believer that anyone who commits a crime should do the time.... but, I am sick to death of the ever-zealous law enforcement departments who could care less about the impact of a wrongful accusation/false arrest on this person just arrested and their family.... all of whom are innocent, but will pay a big price in worry, tears, and lawyer fees large enough to put many average families into bankruptcy.

I think some reforms need to be made.... but, where do we start? The way things are now is just a deplorable shame.

That's an incredible case Wendy. I can't imagine the loss he feels over missing his daughters grow up. He lost his wife!!! Wow. Especially being innocent. It's enough to break a man. I hope he is at least coping and enjoying time with his daughters now. Though the stigma of being convicted will never leave him. Some people will only remember that he was convicted of killing his wife.

Good post Az. You said a lot there. If all the cops and lawyers and attorneys and judges were honest. On the whole most of them work hard in their field/calling for justice. To punish the bad and serve the victims. Yet as always some try to serve themselves and innocents suffer.
Nothing can make up for this man's suffering. Nothing can bring back the life he missed.

I wonder what evidence they based his conviction on?? I thought it had to be beyond a reasonable doubt?

Nakis, you are right... the conviction should be when a person is found to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is what our justice system is based on. But, for anyone who has ever served on a jury, there are problems with that, too. Jurors can be just as unreliable and self-serving as our less-than-honorable members of the justice system.

Here you have this group of 12 people (plus a couple of alternates) who have been carefully selected, with lawyers trying to find people for the jury who will be most beneficial to their client whether it be the prosecution or the defense. Then, the trial begins, and they hear all of the evidence from both sides. Now it's time to send the jury off to the little room to deliberate.

Anyone who has ever served on a jury, especially for a felony case (and I have), knows how it usually goes in the jury room. From this mix of people, they select a foreman who will be in charge of kind of keeping things on track and also for calling for a vote whenever it seems that the time is right to check on where they are in relation to agreeing on a verdict. Everything is cool, so far, right? Well, in some cases, it is... but in other cases, it isn't.

Among that pool of jurors, there will be strong personalities, and there will be some of the meeker sorts of people. When the jury is asked to vote, and there are some holdouts on the a unanimous verdict, sometimes these strong personalities come into the picture, and they band together to 'work on' the people who are the holdouts. They try to wear them down, and push them into voting for whatever the majority of jurors are agreeing on. This can get nasty, and they are often in a big hurry to 'just get it overwith', so THEY can go home. They want to go on with their lives, and not be stuck deliberating this case for a long period. If it takes harshly coercing someone into voting against their own conscience and beliefs about the guilt or innocence of the defendant, then that is what they want. This is especially true in cases where the jury is to be sequestered until a verdict is reached. There are some jurors who just don't want to be there, period, and they can get very nasty toward other jurors who don't agree with them.

Then, there will also be pressures brought to bear by the judge, if there is any sign that they may have a hung jury (no unanimous decision). If they notify the judge that they have not yet reached a verdict, and that there seems to be a difference of opinion, the judge will talk to them (via the bailiff, usually) and tell them to continue deliberating until all agree on either guilt or innocence. There is alot of pressure from the stronger personalities on the jury to just go ahead and vote with the majority. They don't like 'holdouts'. So, in their own self-defense, a juror who tends to be a meeker personality... a 'people pleaser', will eventually give up on what they believe, and join the majority in the vote, just so people won't see them as a 'bad person'. That isn't justice. It is just the 'bullies on the playground' calling the shots. And, so, they finally reach a verdict... not because there were no reasonable doubts, but because any doubts were hammered into the ground until the person(s) who doubted gave in. Justice? Hmmmm.....

I think that most people who have ever served on a jury have probably seen some of this bullying as it happened. It is caused by selfish people who want to 'just get it overwith', without regard for the impact on the lives of the defendant and his/her family. What if the strong personalities are wrong, and the meeker people just can't make a dent in their bravado? It is a shame that people who are selected as jurors aren't always someone who wants to be a part of a fair and impartial justice system. Too often, they are not happy that they were chosen (they are there because they didn't have an excuse that the judge would buy), and they see it as something to be dealt with quickly and superficially, so they can get on with their own lives.

I wish there was a way to make this better, but I don't have the slightest idea how to circumvent human nature. I always felt honored when I was selected to serve on a jury, and I went into it with as much impartiality and fairness as I could muster. It really didn't matter to me how long it took, because a person's life was about to be seriously effected by the decision of the jury.

The felony trial I served on was a rape trial where an ex-husband had beaten and raped his ex-wife in front of their two pre-school children. Based on evidence... pictures of the victim, testimonies of both parties, etc., I felt he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... but one lady felt he might be innocent, based on something she saw as doubtful. I sat and watched a couple of 'bullies' on this jury harrass and belittle this lady to near tears, so she finally voted 'guilty'... I wasn't as gutsy back then as I am now, and I just didn't get involved. Today, I would have said something to the 'bullies', and asked for a calm, fact-finding discussion of her doubts among all of us. Maybe she saw something that we didn't see? We did wind up convicting this man, (and I felt in my heart it was the right decision), but it still bothers me... 20 years later, that they had bullied this lady to get her to vote to convict, without much regard for WHY she felt as she did. I could tell that she wasn't happy about changing her vote, but she did it. She had had enough. I have never forgotten this incident.

People will be people, no matter where they are. Sometimes, I think it might be better to just have a judge make the decision, rather than placing this verdict into what might be the hands of a couple of bullies, some regular folks, and a couple of people pleasers. Having a committee to do nearly anything will bring out these traits in people. I wish I knew the answer to get rid of this facet of human nature in our juries, but I don't think it is something we will ever be able to accomplish. Our justice system, while being one of the better ones in the world, is still flawed.

True and impartial justice still eludes us... even with what we feel are good checks and balances. The human element is still there, and humans are prone to errors. Sad, but true.