The Confessions - a case study in the subjectivity of the justice system
Watched this doco last night called The Confessions. It outlines the events that happened after a woman was found raped and murdered in Norfolk, Virginia, USA.
This story is so crazy it would be unbelievable if not lived. The cops started with one suspect, whose DNA did not match that found at the crime scene. This is after the cops interrogated this 'suspect' and broke him into confessing to the crime. When the DNA results come back, they go back to the first suspect and coerce him to point the finger at an 'accomplice' he MUST have had with him at the crime scene.
Now replay this 6 other times. Yes, one by one, each 'suspect' was thrown in jail, made to point the finger at someone else when the DNA evidence didn't match up, until there were 7 innocent guys in jail. The second guy to be accused was so broken by the interrogations that he actually ended up believing he committed the crime. One of the guys wasn't even in town at the time of the crime, but that didn't stop the cops from throwing him in jail.
SEVEN.
The last three were released when the 4th 'accused' recanted his statement.
BUT WAIT.
They actually find the guy who did it. His DNA matched, he confessed, he maintains he acted alone, and there was no connection to be found between him and the other 4 guys (now called the Norfolk 4).
AND THEN
the Norfolk 4 are still charged and go through trials, and ALL are found guilty by a jury. The juries were informed of the one dude whose DNA matched, and his confession, but each of these men were found guilty because of their confessions.
IT BOGGLES THE MIND.
In the face of evidence AND the perpetrator saying he acted alone, 4 men spend time in jail and have to register on the sex crime registry.
This is the trouble with belief over evidence. Lives are destroyed.
This is the trouble with a justice system which won't admit its subjectivity and failings.
This is the trouble with having a jury of un/misinformed peers who value a confession (obtained unethically) over evidence (or the lack of it)
And think on this - these guys weren't physically tortured. They were interrogated for hours on end, and they caved, giving completely false statements just to give the cops what they wanted so that the interrogation would stop. What are the implications for state-sanctioned torture of suspects under the guise of national security? Surely they would say what their torturers want to hear just to make it stop too?
How many others are there out there, forced into giving a confession for something they never did?
Of the 4, one finished his sentence, 3 were let out of jail due to the Governor's pardon, but none were declared innocent men. The Governor took THREE years to think on it, and decided he too believed the confessions over the evidence.
This is how fucking insane things get when belief is elevated over reason.
Aussie can watch it here for the next two days: http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/25000515832/The-Confessions I highly recommend it. If only to remind oneself what justice should look like.