= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jimrandomh comments on Soulless morality - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (36)
I don't believe you. Or rather, I believe that you have been confused by legal terminology. If a lower court reviews new evidence and decides to reverse a conviction, then that is not an appeal, because appeals can only be granted by a higher court, but it leads to the person being released anyways. You have confused a statement about legal procedure for a statement about outcomes, leading you to an obviously absurd conclusion about the value of innocent peoples' freedom.
Phil is stuck in the 20th century. In 2001 "biological" evidence became admissible later. This is supposed to mean DNA, but might cover a living "victim." In 2004, more evidence became admissible. But those who plead guilty are stuck. http://truthinjustice.org/VAevidence.htm
In Virginia, until 2001, neither a lower court, nor any other court, could review new evidence after 21 days. In 2001, an exception was made for DNA evidence. In 2004, an exception was made for evidence that could not possibly have been discovered within 21 days, that would have led any "reasonable" person to a verdict of innocent, for people who pled innocent. See http://www.vadp.org/21day.htm, http://truthinjustice.org/VAevidence.htm .