al at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation." However, regardless of these safeguards for valid testimonies, misidentifications have littered the criminal justice system, resulting in many false convictions. In a study done by Samuel R. Gross regarding exonerations in the United States, his statistics show that eyewitness misidentification accounted for 88% of the 121 rape exonerations and 50% of the 205 murder exonerations, which are, without a doubt, significant statistics. As a result, this heated debate is sent underway, with the victims countering the innocents in a fight to have each of their liberties heard. More recently, the case of Troy Anthony Davis (as pictured right) has been a significant topic for many, as reflected by Walker Willingham in his blog post Innocence Matters! There, he reflects upon the the controversial case which has left Davis seated on death row, despite his potential innocence. Similarly, The False Rape Society has presented another facet of this complex argument in their blog post, Two fundamental criminal law principles that protect the innocent are nowhere questioned - except when it comes to rape claims. They acknowledge the complexities in regards to the questionable nature of eyewitness confessions and demonstrate the conflicting viewpoints of both sides vying for their rights in convictions for rape cases. In addition to commenting on their respective pages, I have included my post comments below."Innocence Matters!"
Comment:
Thank you for your intriguing post on this highly significant issue which, before, was unknown to me. I do feel as though our criminal justice system is formatted under a more punitive model, which focuses more upon putting to justice those who are believed to have committed crimes. However, sometimes this belief of fairness, punishment and retribution clouds the idea of putting the correct person to justice. This case in particular seems to be extremely controversial, as you have stated that although there was "no physical evidence [that] tied him to the murder" and a "credible different suspect for the crime," the overwhelming number of witnesses testifying otherwise leaves the court in a difficult deciding position. Because of this fact, I agree with your questioning on what's the rush? Particularly in cases involving the death penalty, courts are very meticulous in their efforts to ensure their actions are justified before putting a person to death. In this case, especially in regards to the fact that there seems to be large controversy and confusion, it seems bizarre that they would be set upon his execution before re-trialing him. However, although I agree with your ideas, you present the idea that there should be much care taken whether an innocent man was convicted of a crime "which substantial evidence seems to indicate was committed by someone else." To this I ask, not knowing much about the case, whether the evidence, rather than pointing the finger at another individual, simply points the finger possibly away from Davis. Also, our criminal justice system makes a point in putting a great deal of attention to each of their cases. Although we now ask why they are rushing towards a decision in regards to Davis, I find myself also asking how long the Davis case has been an issue for the courts. Seeing as though there are innumerable cases facing the courts and it becomes their civic duty to make a decision in the name of the American public, after years of deliberation, there comes a point where all the evidence has been presented and they are required to make a decision. So, perhaps in this case, the court finds itself at a point where they feel the evidence leans in favor of one course of action over another and they are acting upon such decision.
"Two fundamental criminal law principles that protect the innocent are nowhere questioned - except when it comes to rape claims"
Comment:
I would first like to thank you for this well-written and intriguing post regarding such a controversial issue. All your arguments prove very valid in such circumstances, particularly when you state that "the victim of a rape is not at risk of losing her liberty for decades if her rapist goes free" and that the risk to an innocent man convicted of rape is that his life "is destroyed, and the lives of his loved ones are often destroyed." I agree with your arguments against false convictions in rape cases, seeing as though evidence demonstrates that approximately 36% of all exonerations are in cases of rape, which is hardly a statistic to shrug at. On top of losing years of their lives, these captives undergo much psychological damage not only inside prison, but outside as well, as their reputations, socialization and lifestyles are ruined. Equally intriguing is your presentation of the alternate argument, demonstrating the insensibility of rape claims and the grey area in which a woman might "recharacterize consensual sex as rape." Your claim that the presumption of innocence is crucial to the crime because there is usually no evidence besides a woman's testimony is true in a sense, however, it leaves the criminal justice system at a standstill. What would you propose as a solution to this conundrum in which the innocent should not be accused too soon? Is it justified for large numbers of sexual predators to go free to save the percentage of those who might be falsely accused? Although I would agree that rape cases are subject to much debate and skepticism, they still do occur frequently in society, whether by an acquaintance or a stranger. The advantage to these particular cases is that they still have surviving witnesses, who can make the appropriate identification and bring the criminal to justice. If these women are treated as though their testimonies are the invalid words of women misinterpreting consensual sexual acts, this eliminates the concept of sex crimes and would make society an open door to sexual predators.
