In recent years, more than 150 prisoners in the United States have been exonerated by DNA evidence after spending years, sometimes decades, in prison for crimes they did not commit. Yippee! Now the truth has set them free, and they live happily ever after. Not quite. As the film´s tagline reads "freedom is just the beginning" in an arduous journey for these exonerees whose legal status is yet to be determined by the flawed justice system that wrongly imprisoned them in the first place.
Vincent Moto spent more than ten years in jail for a rape and robbery he did not commit. In 1996, he was set free, the first man in Pennsylvania to be exonerated by DNA evidence. For Moto, this was less a happy ending than a new and bitter beginning. When convicted criminals are released on parole, they are provided funding and other governmental support as they reintegrate into society. Remember, these are actual guilty people. What does a man who was wrongly imprisoned for ten years get from the same system after he is exonerated? About five bucks for cab fare. As Moto sums it up, he was told: "We made a mistake. Now go home." Moto not only receives no support from the state, he cannot even get his criminal record expunged because, for some inexplicable reason, this action requires a hefty fee that he cannot raise.
If that sounds incredible, you´ll be equally amazed by the story of Wilton Dedge. Dedge spent over 20 years in prison for a conviction on sexual battery and burglary. In 1996, he became the first Florida prisoner to appeal his case based on DNA evidence, evidence which proved his innocence. Three years later, however, Dedge was still in prison because the Florida D.A. argued that Dedge filed his appeal inappropriately. Innocence was irrelevant in the eyes of the Florida D.A. Dedge was convicted fair and square on evidence presented at the time, so he should stay in jail. Case closed. After several years, and a team of lawyers, Dedge was finally released in 2004.
The prisoners are only part of the story, of course. Their cases would never make it to court if not for the work of groups such as the Innocence Project and that of "DNA Attorney" Barry Scheck, as well as many others. The documentary follows their work as well as the lives of the prisoners with attorney Nina Morrison of the Innocence Project becoming one of the principal cast members.
Most people take for granted that what they see and hear, and how they remember it, is generally accurate. Otherwise, how could we trust anything our senses relate to us? It is therefore understandable that most people resist the well-proven fact that eye-witness testimony is simply unreliable. Our memories are too vague and too pliable (we re-remember events as we construct them after the fact) to function with the certainty of objective, scientific testing. The case of Ronald Cotton bears this out most strikingly. In 1984, rape victim Jennifer Thompson-Canino identified Cotton as her attacker. It just so happened that the real criminal was another man who bore a passing resemblance to Cotton. Cotton was eventually set free on DNA testing, but only after serving 11 years in jail. Thompson-Canino works along with him to raise awareness over the unreliability of eyewitness testimony.
ith such a proven degree of uncertainty in the legal system, how could any country possibly sanction the death penalty? Former Illinois Governor George Ryan, a life-long supporter of the death penalty, came to the same conclusion in 2003 when he commuted the sentences of all death row inmates in the state.
The wheels of justice grind slowly. With DNA exonerations a relatively new phenomenon, the law offers no universal remedy for these unfairly convicted men. What could possibly be fair compensation to someone like Nick Yarris, who spent over 20 years on death row in solitary confinement, during the first two of which he ws not even permitted to speak? Individual exonerees, working along with support groups and legal aide, are blazing new ground in each new case filed against the state. Some meet with success and big cash settlements; others struggle just to find work in a world that still views them as criminals.
Director Jennifer Sanders has crafted a passionate and moving film about a subject that should shock just about any viewer.
Vincent Moto spent more than ten years in jail for a rape and robbery he did not commit. In 1996, he was set free, the first man in Pennsylvania to be exonerated by DNA evidence. For Moto, this was less a happy ending than a new and bitter beginning. When convicted criminals are released on parole, they are provided funding and other governmental support as they reintegrate into society. Remember, these are actual guilty people. What does a man who was wrongly imprisoned for ten years get from the same system after he is exonerated? About five bucks for cab fare. As Moto sums it up, he was told: "We made a mistake. Now go home." Moto not only receives no support from the state, he cannot even get his criminal record expunged because, for some inexplicable reason, this action requires a hefty fee that he cannot raise.
If that sounds incredible, you´ll be equally amazed by the story of Wilton Dedge. Dedge spent over 20 years in prison for a conviction on sexual battery and burglary. In 1996, he became the first Florida prisoner to appeal his case based on DNA evidence, evidence which proved his innocence. Three years later, however, Dedge was still in prison because the Florida D.A. argued that Dedge filed his appeal inappropriately. Innocence was irrelevant in the eyes of the Florida D.A. Dedge was convicted fair and square on evidence presented at the time, so he should stay in jail. Case closed. After several years, and a team of lawyers, Dedge was finally released in 2004.
The prisoners are only part of the story, of course. Their cases would never make it to court if not for the work of groups such as the Innocence Project and that of "DNA Attorney" Barry Scheck, as well as many others. The documentary follows their work as well as the lives of the prisoners with attorney Nina Morrison of the Innocence Project becoming one of the principal cast members.
Most people take for granted that what they see and hear, and how they remember it, is generally accurate. Otherwise, how could we trust anything our senses relate to us? It is therefore understandable that most people resist the well-proven fact that eye-witness testimony is simply unreliable. Our memories are too vague and too pliable (we re-remember events as we construct them after the fact) to function with the certainty of objective, scientific testing. The case of Ronald Cotton bears this out most strikingly. In 1984, rape victim Jennifer Thompson-Canino identified Cotton as her attacker. It just so happened that the real criminal was another man who bore a passing resemblance to Cotton. Cotton was eventually set free on DNA testing, but only after serving 11 years in jail. Thompson-Canino works along with him to raise awareness over the unreliability of eyewitness testimony.
ith such a proven degree of uncertainty in the legal system, how could any country possibly sanction the death penalty? Former Illinois Governor George Ryan, a life-long supporter of the death penalty, came to the same conclusion in 2003 when he commuted the sentences of all death row inmates in the state.
The wheels of justice grind slowly. With DNA exonerations a relatively new phenomenon, the law offers no universal remedy for these unfairly convicted men. What could possibly be fair compensation to someone like Nick Yarris, who spent over 20 years on death row in solitary confinement, during the first two of which he ws not even permitted to speak? Individual exonerees, working along with support groups and legal aide, are blazing new ground in each new case filed against the state. Some meet with success and big cash settlements; others struggle just to find work in a world that still views them as criminals.
Director Jennifer Sanders has crafted a passionate and moving film about a subject that should shock just about any viewer.
In recent years, more than 150 prisoners in the United States have been exonerated by DNA evidence after spending years, sometimes decades, in prison for crimes they did not commit. Yippee! Now the truth has set them free, and they live happily ever after. Not quite. As the film´s tagline reads "freedom is just the beginning" in an arduous journey for these exonerees whose legal status is yet to be determined by the flawed justice system that wrongly imprisoned them in the first place.
Vincent Moto spent more than ten years in jail for a rape and robbery he did not commit. In 1996, he was set free, the first man in Pennsylvania to be exonerated by DNA evidence. For Moto, this was less a happy ending than a new and bitter beginning. When convicted criminals are released on parole, they are provided funding and other governmental support as they reintegrate into society. Remember, these are actual guilty people. What does a man who was wrongly imprisoned for ten years get from the same system after he is exonerated? About five bucks for cab fare. As Moto sums it up, he was told: "We made a mistake. Now go home." Moto not only receives no support from the state, he cannot even get his criminal record expunged because, for some inexplicable reason, this action requires a hefty fee that he cannot raise.
If that sounds incredible, you´ll be equally amazed by the story of Wilton Dedge. Dedge spent over 20 years in prison for a conviction on sexual battery and burglary. In 1996, he became the first Florida prisoner to appeal his case based on DNA evidence, evidence which proved his innocence. Three years later, however, Dedge was still in prison because the Florida D.A. argued that Dedge filed his appeal inappropriately. Innocence was irrelevant in the eyes of the Florida D.A. Dedge was convicted fair and square on evidence presented at the time, so he should stay in jail. Case closed. After several years, and a team of lawyers, Dedge was finally released in 2004.
The prisoners are only part of the story, of course. Their cases would never make it to court if not for the work of groups such as the Innocence Project and that of "DNA Attorney" Barry Scheck, as well as many others. The documentary follows their work as well as the lives of the prisoners with attorney Nina Morrison of the Innocence Project becoming one of the principal cast members.
Most people take for granted that what they see and hear, and how they remember it, is generally accurate. Otherwise, how could we trust anything our senses relate to us? It is therefore understandable that most people resist the well-proven fact that eye-witness testimony is simply unreliable. Our memories are too vague and too pliable (we re-remember events as we construct them after the fact) to function with the certainty of objective, scientific testing. The case of Ronald Cotton bears this out most strikingly. In 1984, rape victim Jennifer Thompson-Canino identified Cotton as her attacker. It just so happened that the real criminal was another man who bore a passing resemblance to Cotton. Cotton was eventually set free on DNA testing, but only after serving 11 years in jail. Thompson-Canino works along with him to raise awareness over the unreliability of eyewitness testimony.
ith such a proven degree of uncertainty in the legal system, how could any country possibly sanction the death penalty? Former Illinois Governor George Ryan, a life-long supporter of the death penalty, came to the same conclusion in 2003 when he commuted the sentences of all death row inmates in the state.
The wheels of justice grind slowly. With DNA exonerations a relatively new phenomenon, the law offers no universal remedy for these unfairly convicted men. What could possibly be fair compensation to someone like Nick Yarris, who spent over 20 years on death row in solitary confinement, during the first two of which he ws not even permitted to speak? Individual exonerees, working along with support groups and legal aide, are blazing new ground in each new case filed against the state. Some meet with success and big cash settlements; others struggle just to find work in a world that still views them as criminals.
Director Jennifer Sanders has crafted a passionate and moving film about a subject that should shock just about any viewer.
Vincent Moto spent more than ten years in jail for a rape and robbery he did not commit. In 1996, he was set free, the first man in Pennsylvania to be exonerated by DNA evidence. For Moto, this was less a happy ending than a new and bitter beginning. When convicted criminals are released on parole, they are provided funding and other governmental support as they reintegrate into society. Remember, these are actual guilty people. What does a man who was wrongly imprisoned for ten years get from the same system after he is exonerated? About five bucks for cab fare. As Moto sums it up, he was told: "We made a mistake. Now go home." Moto not only receives no support from the state, he cannot even get his criminal record expunged because, for some inexplicable reason, this action requires a hefty fee that he cannot raise.
If that sounds incredible, you´ll be equally amazed by the story of Wilton Dedge. Dedge spent over 20 years in prison for a conviction on sexual battery and burglary. In 1996, he became the first Florida prisoner to appeal his case based on DNA evidence, evidence which proved his innocence. Three years later, however, Dedge was still in prison because the Florida D.A. argued that Dedge filed his appeal inappropriately. Innocence was irrelevant in the eyes of the Florida D.A. Dedge was convicted fair and square on evidence presented at the time, so he should stay in jail. Case closed. After several years, and a team of lawyers, Dedge was finally released in 2004.
The prisoners are only part of the story, of course. Their cases would never make it to court if not for the work of groups such as the Innocence Project and that of "DNA Attorney" Barry Scheck, as well as many others. The documentary follows their work as well as the lives of the prisoners with attorney Nina Morrison of the Innocence Project becoming one of the principal cast members.
Most people take for granted that what they see and hear, and how they remember it, is generally accurate. Otherwise, how could we trust anything our senses relate to us? It is therefore understandable that most people resist the well-proven fact that eye-witness testimony is simply unreliable. Our memories are too vague and too pliable (we re-remember events as we construct them after the fact) to function with the certainty of objective, scientific testing. The case of Ronald Cotton bears this out most strikingly. In 1984, rape victim Jennifer Thompson-Canino identified Cotton as her attacker. It just so happened that the real criminal was another man who bore a passing resemblance to Cotton. Cotton was eventually set free on DNA testing, but only after serving 11 years in jail. Thompson-Canino works along with him to raise awareness over the unreliability of eyewitness testimony.
ith such a proven degree of uncertainty in the legal system, how could any country possibly sanction the death penalty? Former Illinois Governor George Ryan, a life-long supporter of the death penalty, came to the same conclusion in 2003 when he commuted the sentences of all death row inmates in the state.
The wheels of justice grind slowly. With DNA exonerations a relatively new phenomenon, the law offers no universal remedy for these unfairly convicted men. What could possibly be fair compensation to someone like Nick Yarris, who spent over 20 years on death row in solitary confinement, during the first two of which he ws not even permitted to speak? Individual exonerees, working along with support groups and legal aide, are blazing new ground in each new case filed against the state. Some meet with success and big cash settlements; others struggle just to find work in a world that still views them as criminals.
Director Jennifer Sanders has crafted a passionate and moving film about a subject that should shock just about any viewer.
No comments:
Post a Comment