Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (3547)	3/19/2002 8:11:08 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

I've been great, thanks. As I said, I don't know the facts of those cases. However, "wrongful conviction" is not the same as "innocent." This is a common misconception about our own justice system, that "not guilty" means "innocent," which it most certainly does not. I don't think even the O. J. Simpson jurors believed he was innocent, only not proven guilty. I might look into the cases you mention, just out of curiosity for myself, as a crime buff.

To: Solon who wrote (3547)	3/19/2002 8:21:35 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (11) \| Respond to of 21057

BTW, the only case of an innocent man executed that I know of, worldwide, was the John Christie case in England, perhaps 50 years ago. A man named Timothy Evans (going on memory here) was convicted and hanged for murders in a house he was rooming in. The owner, Christie, later was clearly shown to have been the guilty one. The Christie case was the centerpiece of the move to abolish the death penalty. There was a book and a movie on the case. I have yet to come across a comparable case in the U.S., say in the last half-century. That is not to say that there may not have been one, which I don't know about, or maybe no one knows about. Any system run by mere mortals will make mistakes. That is price we pay for our frailties, just as in the case of troops killed by friendly fire. My original point was that the opponents of the D.P. have not presented convincing cases.