Here's something you might be interested in.
I got into an argument with a few of my friends the other day. That's nothing new.
There was a story on the news about a woman that had been jailed for seven years for a bank robbery. Problem was, she didn't do it.
She was being investigated for some stamps she stole. Well, she fit the description of a bank robber. Some witnesses (six, I believe), identified her in a police lineup. She was found guilty and sentenced.
In jail the real bank robber, who looked like her, was told of what had happened by this woman. She eventually admitted that there were a few more banks she did rob that this other woman didn't.
So, they released this lady.
Now, at this point, there's no argument. But, when the woman said "The system has failed me," that's when I shouted out, "How?"
My friends jumped down my throat. One started saying she deserved some compensation. I said, "To me, the system worked absolutely perfect. This woman is a thief. She stole stamps. Had she not stolen anything, none of this would've happened. Not that she deserved all that, but she fit a description, and unfortunately, she got fingered for a crime she didn't commit. A jury found her guilty, the same way a jury found OJ and Spector 'not guilty'. Then, the system, when shown they had the wrong person, released her. How did the system fail her? A failure would be them getting this new information and doing nothing about it. Should the court said to these six witnesses, 'Are you absolutely positive it was this woman? She doesn't have a history of robbing banks, merely stealing small items, like stamps."
What should the system have done differently?
Now, if they want to give her $50,000, fine. But, they better not give her a million or something like that. I'm sure they will. Or she'll sue, and get that. Maybe give her $50,000 worth of stamps.
If they give her anything over 100 grand, the system has failed us all.
I got into an argument with a few of my friends the other day. That's nothing new.
There was a story on the news about a woman that had been jailed for seven years for a bank robbery. Problem was, she didn't do it.
She was being investigated for some stamps she stole. Well, she fit the description of a bank robber. Some witnesses (six, I believe), identified her in a police lineup. She was found guilty and sentenced.
In jail the real bank robber, who looked like her, was told of what had happened by this woman. She eventually admitted that there were a few more banks she did rob that this other woman didn't.
So, they released this lady.
Now, at this point, there's no argument. But, when the woman said "The system has failed me," that's when I shouted out, "How?"
My friends jumped down my throat. One started saying she deserved some compensation. I said, "To me, the system worked absolutely perfect. This woman is a thief. She stole stamps. Had she not stolen anything, none of this would've happened. Not that she deserved all that, but she fit a description, and unfortunately, she got fingered for a crime she didn't commit. A jury found her guilty, the same way a jury found OJ and Spector 'not guilty'. Then, the system, when shown they had the wrong person, released her. How did the system fail her? A failure would be them getting this new information and doing nothing about it. Should the court said to these six witnesses, 'Are you absolutely positive it was this woman? She doesn't have a history of robbing banks, merely stealing small items, like stamps."
What should the system have done differently?
Now, if they want to give her $50,000, fine. But, they better not give her a million or something like that. I'm sure they will. Or she'll sue, and get that. Maybe give her $50,000 worth of stamps.
If they give her anything over 100 grand, the system has failed us all.