Judd wrote:I just finished watching the news and a guy convicted of murder was sentenced to life w/no parole. He was just released after 26 years.
The real killer confessed to his atty but the atty could say nothing due to atty/client privelage. The guy died last year and the atty released the signed affidavit.
Until YOU have been involved in a court case, you will never have a clue. I have been involved in family,civil and criminal cases and 99% of people do not have a clue as to what actually happens. I am not going to go into detail but I have seen 3 police officers give completely different and CONFLICTING versions, yet the judge ignored it all.
Dont have so much faith in the legal system.
You and AF seem to be missing the point entirely. Whether the justice system churns out perfectly accurate determinations of guilt or liability is completely irrelevant to what we are talking about here, which is whether the filing of charges (plus the release of limited but fairly condemning evidence) is enough to justify keeping this guy away from the kids
until there is a final legal determination. Anecdotal stories about wrongful convictions--or even wrongful accusations--are pointless. So are statistics about either, unless they show that people charged crimes are no more likely to have committed them than your average Joe. Otherwise the fact that charges were filed means something.
Look, I trust the government and its employees about as far as I can throw bucketdad96 (

). But I
do trust people to look out for their own best interests, and it's simply not the case that prosecutors can get away with filing charges left and right without credible supporting evidence. And other than in high profile matters like the Duke case (where I remind you that the prosecutor was ultimately disbarred and is facing worse) what would be the incentive? It's not like they're sitting on their thumbs all day hoping a crime will be committed--they're slammed as it is. Doesn't add up.