Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Innocent, but found Guilty
In the article I chose to read about, William Dillon who was accused of killing James Dvorak, was let out of prison after 27 years because of new evidence that found him not guilty. Back when Dillon was put in prison there wasn’t DNA testing, so the blood that was on the shirt, that was used in his trial, turned out not to be his at all. This confuses me, if they are just now able to confirm that it wasn’t his blood on that shirt then how, back in 1981, were they able to prove that it was his blood? Did the prosecution just look at the shirt and say, “Oh look, it’s blood, and it must be yours!” It makes you think about all the people who are in jail right now who are innocent like this man was, especially the ones on death row. Can you imagine the hell of being put into prison for something you didn’t do? 27 years of his life was taken away in one swift move. Oh but Dillon isn’t the only one, the Innocence Project, which specializes in wrongful convictions, said that there were two other cases where the people served 27 years in prison before they were found innocent after all. Now I know that there are some slip ups in the system, but now with new ways to get evidence, everyone who was sentenced to prison, before the DNA testing was available, should have all the evidence looked at and see if the system messed up yet again. Now I know that the government has better things to do then to look back at old cases to find out if the people they put in prison are actually innocent, but if you were in a position such as Dillon’s wouldn’t you want anyone to do what they can?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with you, it should be a lot harder for innocent people to be convicted of life ending crimes. I think it would be better for us to miss some criminals rather than become the very ones unjustly stealing the lives of innocent people. If you remember the Salem witch trials, a lot of innocent people were killed and imprisoned on the testimony of some weak minded brats. I think beyond the shadow of doubt should mean more than just whether or not you think it's likely the person is guilty. We need real evidence and if we don't have it we should let the accused go until we do.
I am William Dillon and I agree with you ever so much that people need to look into cases done before DNA testing was availible. Still my trial was a farce they knew I was innocent they just wanted there stars to pin on at the expense of a twenty one year old. Where do we get JUSTICE when the ones assigned to dispense it are out for themselves and positions?
Post a Comment