A short while ago I wrote a blog about the motion before the Michigan Supreme Court on setting a time limit on submitting new evidence. There were a couple of interesting articles in the Free Press this week discussing said amendment--which I mention only because both are excellent examples of why this piss poor motion should be dismissed.
One is by Jeff Gerritt--who has the admirable job of being the Free Press' ombudsmen for prisoners (and what a fun job that must be in our current tea party hate-filled nation). He points out the case of one Dwayne Provience, who was convicted in 2001 of murder, but thanks to the Michigan Innocence Clinic, his wrongful conviction was overturned. Had the current motion for time limits been in effect, Mr. Provience would still be in prison for a crime he did not commit. Mr. Gerritt is exactly right when he explains that keeping innocent people out of prison is a far more compelling moral claim than the expense of "frivolous" (bet Mr. Provience doesn't think his new evidence was frivolous) new evidence claims.
The second was a piece by the always thoughtful Leonard Pitts (if any op-ed writer is writing finer pieces than Mr. Pitts in America today, I've yet to find him)--on the plight of one Anthony Graves, who recently won a new trial in what may be another in an unfortunate cycle of convicting innocent people of murder. Mr. Pitts aptly points out that outraged citizens demanding the death penalty for outrageous crimes may be a compelling case for abolishing the death penalty--emotion gets in the way of reason, logic, and fairness. And I might add, even worse, putting innocent people to death.
Just sayin'....
Peace,
emaycee
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment