Comments on: 5 out of 9 Justices Recommend Leaving Innocent People in Jail

By: bob

bob — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:23:31 +0000

Laws are laws. Laws are often conflicting and There is fundamental requirement of justice in constitution. It is to support standing and respect of the courts in the system. It is ironic, that through this decision the SC has put the entire judicial system into disrepute. It appears like a clown circus now.

Further there is doctrine of "beyond reasonable doubt". The cases highlight that judicial system failed to analyze cases properly. Punishing innocent is the worst which can happen. The real offender avoids punishment, while somebody looses their life. Instead of correcting the failures to restore justice, it appears the system tries to keep lid on the discovery of the true scope and extent of the problem.

By: John Fiorentino

John Fiorentino — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:50:53 +0000

Unfortunately, this is a States' rights issue. Therein is the rub. Are there some innocent people in jail? You bet, just as there are guilty ones walking the streets. Both ideas are repulsive and tragedies in their own right. Our system of justice is far from perfect, but all in all functions as designed. "Charlie" is correct re: the 10th amendment. I think Dr. Starr's "Gore vs. Bush" analogy is simple wrong. On the other hand, I don't feel Dr. Starr was flaunting his Ph'D to indicate he has "a superior ability to know what is best for the people in the United States." Dr. Starr's politics are irrelevant to the issue at hand. He simply doesn't understand the law, but that is certainly not an indictment. I feel quite the opposite about Charlie's analysis of Dr. Starr. The fact is, it would be much healthier for everyone if we could get away from this "qualification" issue. Dr. Starr is entitled to his opinion, just as you are. Whether that opinion can be judged "right or wrong" is a different issue entirely. Personally, I'm glad to see the Dr. commenting on things with a broader scope.

By: Barry Starr

Barry Starr — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:23:12 +0000

My degree gives me no superior ability in law…I freely admit that I am not knowledgeable about constitutional law. What I do know is that there are innocent men and women in prison who could be freed with a simple DNA test.

See http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/1852.php for more information about the legal grounds on which the Innocence Project brought their case to the Supreme Court.

Also, Gore vs. Bush didn't bother me because of its outcome…Bush would probably have won a recount anyway. What bothered me about that ruling was that it split in a way that obviously fit with the biases of the Justices themselves. Up to that point I had the naive view that the Court was impartial and unbiased.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:10:07 +0000

Of course you are correct in your supposition that there is some legal reason why the Supreme Ct ruled the way it did.

It is not up to the Court to make laws. It must follow the Constitutional mandates. In this case they left it up to the states to decide on the use of DNA testing. The 10th Amendment gives this power to the states.

It would be nice if individuals could decide for themselves what is right and best for this country without it interfering with the rights of others, but that is impossible.

Your first statement regarding Gore vs. Bush indicates your liberal and left wing view of the United States. Just because you have the Dr. degree doesn't mean that you have a superior ability to know what is best for the people in the United States. It would be much better for you to state what your opinion is rather than state that your opinion is superior to that of the Supreme Court of the U. S.

You'd be more believable if you did.